Derby Blogs  //

Qualifying the Qualifyers

posted by Mac McBride on April 23, 2008 Tags: , , ,
Kentucky Derby Post ParadeKentucky Derby Post Parade

Your hard-working bloggist (now isn’t that a pip of a word – if it actually is one) is off to the Blue Grass early in the a.m., but first wants to throw out a thought or two about this great, growing beast that is the Kentucky Derby. America’s most famous race has gone from hot-air balloon to dirigible in the last decade or so as just more and more folks climb on board. That’s a good thing is so many ways, but – just like a town morphing into a city – there have to be – and are -- growing pains along the way.

One of the acute pains for the Derby right now is: Who gets to run? It wasn’t too far back when this wasn’t a concern. The horses sorted themselves out, owners and trainers weren’t too pushy about it and fields as small as 15 (1998) and 13 (1997) were sent postward. But now, in the era of 20-horses-for-sure lineups, those bets are off. The Derby and all that revolves around it – from media aspects, to business enhancements, to social encounters – have taken on a life of their own. Even the large fees ($50K to enter and start) and all the additional costs around running in the race aren’t scaring anyone away. It’s seen as the cost of playing the game and a surprising number of people are only too happy to pay-for-play.

When it became apparent to the Churchill people that they were going to have to step in and – to some degree -- sort out the players in the process, they chose a relatively wise and easy way to do it. Graded stakes earnings were the key and, if you had enough of them, you were in; if not, you needed to look elsewhere. And, under the “old” system of training, running and readying horses for the race, for the most part that worked fine.

Ah, but things have changed. No longer do owners and trainers race their horses up to the Derby. Used to be that 10 or 12 or more starts prior to the big race was standard procedure; something all but expected in the biz. Not now. Now it almost seems that the game has become a test of how-few-times-can-I-run-him-and-still-get-away-with-it. Less is more and, in many eyes, less is good. And lord almighty let’s not get him beat! That would be the end of the world. In this new racehorse reality, the simple graded stakes earnings system is losing its true yardstick value for the race.

This year’s Derby has an amazing number of players who are at the forefront of the “in” list because of things they did as juveniles last year. Nearly a third of this year’s likely lineup – six horses (Tale of Ekati, Colonel John, Big Brown, Monba, Court Vision and Recapturetheglory) – have raced only twice this year. At least nine (and possibly 10) others – Anak Nakal, Cowboy Cal, Pyro, Gayego, Z Humor, Adriano, Smooth Air, Cool Coal Man and Bob Black Jack – have raced a total of three times. Coming up to what for virtually all of them will be the most demanding race of their lives, they have little bottom underneath them for all those high demands above.

This can’t be good for the horses, but that’s another whole issue that needs to be addressed another day. What can be said here though is that the current “style” of racing makes it tougher (and less fun) for the fans and handicappers following their favorites up to the big day. You need to see them run if you really want to get a line on them. But with fewer starts being made there is a whole lot more guesswork going on and “investors” – be they on Wall Street or at the racetrack – are less inclined to plunk their money down on guesses over facts. Further, the current situation opens up possibilities where horses that are on the rise, the late bloomers who potentially have something to add to the race, can be pushed aside by horses who might have amassed a good bank account last year, but now have hit a plateau or are heading south. The reality is that good horses can get excluded from the race, while lesser ones might get added in. That, obviously, does not make for the best race you can have.

So how might we fix all of this? Or at least how might we make it better? No doubt there are more than a few ways to do it, but here’s one man’s rough blueprint for a possible way to go:

Instead of a graded earnings system, a “points” system should be installed. Graded stakes races would be the ones that count, of course, but they would be refined further to give emphasis to Grade I’s over Grade II’s, and they in turn over Grade III’s. A Grade I win might be worth 15 points. A Grade II 12. A Grade III 9. Similar descending breakdowns could be put in place for running second and third in these races.

Now, here comes the “key” that could really make our “points” system work. The system would also be tweaked for juvenile races as opposed to 3-year-old races. The juvenile races would be worth less; the 3-year-old races more. Let’s leave it to a good mathematician (or a sharp racing secretary) to assign proper numbers or percentages for doing this. But let’s do it, for sure. If we did, we’d be favoring the cream on top, therefore making it more likely you’re going to get the best horses into your race. And (loud drum roll please) you’d also be fostering the idea that trainers and owners would want to run their horses as 3-year-olds! You be rewarding them for taking part in the Derby preps. You’d be encouraging them to put some bottom into their horses coming up to the biggest challenge of their young lives.

If the “points-instead-of-money” system became reality, there would be another side benefit that would come into play. Our friends in Dubai, who have Monopoly money that others can only dream of, have installed huge purses on their “Derby preps.” Get close in one of those races and you’re automatically going to qualify under the current money-won system, no matter what other horses back here in the U.S. of A. are doing. But if – in our new points system -- the Dubai races become point events, they go back to equal footing with all the other races being run. You take Monopoly money off the table and out of the game.

Finally, it is suggested that there be one more tweak in the arrangement to make things as fair as they can be. In the case of graded stakes that have “conditions,” they, too, should have their point values reduced. What’s that about, you say? The answer is easy: it’s about the fillies.

Fillies are great – no doubt. But fillies, under the current system, are being given edges they don’t deserve. A filly running against her own kind gets credit for the money she earns just as if she was running “open,” that is against all comers, that is against colts. In our new world system, we would again downgrade conditioned stakes a reasonable points sum to reflect the less demanding nature of such races. It would, once more, allow for the “better” horses to rise to the top, but also just as surely leave the door open for an owner or trainer with a filly they feel might be good enough to take on the boys to do just that. But it would pay them to do it in “open” prep races where the connections – and the public – can find out if they really do fit where some think they might. If a filly can win or hold her own there, then – by all means -- bring her on for the Derby. But let’s not have them affecting colts by entering both the Oaks and the Derby (the way they currently can) based on credits piled up in less-than-the-best contests.

So there, you’ve heard me out. If you believe it has merit, would love to hear your feedback. If you think it’s just plain dumb – or if you’ve got a better way to go – would love to hear that, too. If we put enough good minds and enough good thought toward this, we might make the Kentucky Derby even better than it currently is – and that’s saying a mouthful.

Hope to run across some of you in Kentucky. Good Derby luck to you all.

Join the Discussion

| 30 comments so far | Login to comment

Cdpotato4

04/23/2008 10:02 pm

Mac,

I like that idea a lot. Here is another one to ponder:

A qualifying system almost like Breeder's Cup Win and Your In from these races:

Blue Grass
Lexington
Arkansas
Rebel
Southwest
Santa Anita
San Felipe
Sham
Bob Lewis
Florida
Fountain of Youth
Holy Bull
Illinois
Wood
Gotham
Lane's End
Louisianna
Risen Star
Tampa Bay
Sam F. Davis

If some horses that win don't run than go to the graded earnings system.

tomtou

04/23/2008 11:27 pm

Mac,

Glad to see somebody has finally spoken up. The Derby Trail has become boring. With horses now running every two months or what seems like it, it is hard to get too exicted about any of them. Inbetween we spend time listening to either trainer or media hype, neither of which can be relied upon for truthfulness or accuracy.

The graded earnings criteria as you say needs to be re-thought as it no longer works. I've long thought that the 2yr old graded earnings should not count for the full amount and earnings from all graded races should be pro-rated based on the grade level the money was earned at. I like your idea of a points system. I don't like the win you're in idea at all. Don't like it for the Breeders' Cup - worse for the Derby (sorry Cd).

The filly situation: This really gets me wound up with the prospect of having one or I read somewhere possibly BOTH cross entered in the Oaks and the Derby.
Very sporting of Mr Porter!

Suddenly every good filly is the new 'Rags to Riches'. At the moment it happens to be Eight Belles, only a couple of months ago it was 'Country Star' who was appearing in most of the ten lists. On May 02nd 'Country Star' will be running where she is best suited - The Oaks hopefully Eight Belles will be running against her and on May 03rd a three year old colt will be in the Derby starting gate in her place.

Great work Mac, enjoy the Derby!

ryanmoseley

04/24/2008 12:27 am

Mac,

A BIG THANK YOU! I love your system. I think it works better than any graded earnings system could. I have heard of another where the graded earnings are cut in half for the 2 year olds and percentages cut off for inferior grade races, i.e. 100% for grade 1s, 80% for grade 2s and so on. I think the points system encourages more racing which is undoubtedly better for the fans, bettors and ultimately racetracks and sponsors. I don't so much like trying to alienate the Sheikhs but their system is set up such that they shouldn't have a problem sending their 3 year olds to compete in the U.S.A. even if it meas shipping them back and forth for the UAE Derby. In my perfect system the 2 year old champ has an automatic berth. Same for the Oaks.

Ona another notw the prize money in the Oaks needs to be increased significantly. Once again good work!

barryrmitchell

04/24/2008 2:19 am

Okay Mac, I know I wrote this blog last year. Points for the Grade Stakes. I was shot by the bloggers here.

Now I feeling like this commercial where the owner of the company ask his staff for a good idea to reduce cost. An employee says, we can hire FedEx for shipping and save 50%.

SILENCE hit the room. Then the owner said, we can hire FedEx and reduce cost 50%.

Everyone in the room said good idea. Now the employee which originally indicated the saving plan, stated, I just said what you just said. Everyone spoke up, thats because you are not the owner. OUCH!

Good work though, but it will never happen. Why! the purse money is the biggest stimulator and draw back. Each qualifying race tracks are separately own with different purse value offered. The name of the game is "PROFIT" not points, unless each race track offers the same purse for each qualifying race.

You know that will never occur.

barryrmitchell

04/24/2008 2:28 am

Mac, who do you think is the most experience Jockey in the 2008 Derby?

I just finish watching Corey ride Lite Light in the 1991 Oaks, He rode brilliantly!

Corey has to be hungry man, He got the Willie Shoemaker look in his eye! In fact he looks just like the younger Shoe.

In 1991 he rode Lite Light to a 10 length victory. Huge performance.

Then I watch him ride Lava Man at Hollywood Gold Cup and Santa Anita Handicap.

When the stakes are high, Corel seems to deliver.

By the way, nice 2005 Kentucky Derby pic. I am somewhere in the crown to the left of the post parade holding a losing ticket!

Geronimo2123

04/24/2008 6:07 am

Corey N. must be riding Colonel John for the esteemed Mr. barrymitchell to be bringing it up, Mac. LOL. To me, Corey has the tools to deliver if he rides smart and his horse shows up and run well enough to possibly win.

Colonel John is in my top 3 regardless of his lack of dirt experience.

eaoa89

04/24/2008 6:43 am

Mac-
I had actually posted (forgot what blog) something similar to this. My idea was also a point system, using the Fantasy Challenge Point system. Here's the catch: Full points would only be awarded on 3 year old (or 3 year old and up if there are any) races around 2 turns (or 1 mile or more, take your pick) on dirt (or artificial surface) open to both sexes. For all others, (sprints, turf, fillies, 2yo, etc.) 1/2 points would be awarded. The only "win and you're in" race would be the Breeder's Cup Juvenile. (The 2yo champ does deserve a derby spot in my opinion) There may be ties so here are the "breakers"

1.) Graded Stakes (2 turn for 3yo) wins
2.) Grade One (as above) wins
3.) Grade Two (as above) wins
4.) Grade Three (as above) wins
5.) Graded Stakes Earnings AS A 3YO IN 2 TURN DIRT RACES
6.) Total Graded Stakes earnings.

In a "perfect world" the 20 horses with the best chance to win would go, and the other thing this plan (as with yours) would do is to encourage owners to run their horses. They aren't automatically in because they happen to win a grade 2 or 3 with a big purse.

hossgnat

04/24/2008 7:31 am

Mac-
Agreed, the Derby has a very different dynamic than it did just several years ago. There will always be an overflow contingent looking to make the field. A points system has merit but no system will be perfect. Still, the current graded earnings system does seem obsolete and ineffective -- time to implement a better plan such as yours.

And while we're thinking outside the box, the "strategic" scratch bothers me. Not that there is much precedence for it historically, but the potential exists this year. Jones is likely to cross-enter Eight Belles and possibly both of his fillies. Why not levy a very steep penalty on connections that enter and then scratch for strategic reasons? Squandering the $50k entry fee doesn't appear to be a big deal for some owners these days.

ryanmoseley

04/24/2008 10:19 am

Barry,

I remember your post and I give you credit! You're not forgotten. It was eaoa's post that I remember from this year. I thought your system sounded very good indeed. Either way something must be done to get the horses to race more. It's for the good of the game. The breeder's industry is only important if we have racetracks, race fans and sponsors. It's time to take care of them again.

tracmonster

04/24/2008 10:37 am

Good stuff Mac.......if Im not mistaken...Winning Colors ran against the boys in the Santa Anita Derby and won...then held on to win the Ky Derby...seems like a good qualifier for fillies would be at least an on the board finish in an open graded race...also I dont think 2 year old races should count at all.....many times 2 year olds run a stakes straight out of a maiden win against very questionable quality and if they hit the jackpot...like the purses in the Saratoga 2 y.o. races,they're in and many times these are nothing more than allowance races....anybody agree?

jgabbo

04/24/2008 11:36 am

Meshing some of those ideas:

3 Year Old Races

2 Turn

Grade 1: (1st-600pts, 2nd-200pts, 3rd-100pts, 4th and 5th 50pts)
Grade 2: (360, 120, 60, 30, 30)
Grade 3: (120, 40, 20, 10, 10)

Sprint and Filly 2 Turn

Grade 1: (300, 100, 50, 25, 25)
Grade 2: (180, 60, 30, 15, 15)
Grade 3: (60, 20, 10, 5, 5)

Juvenile Any Distance

Grade 1: (400, 130, 70, 30, 30)
Grade 2: (240, 80, 40, 20, 20)
Grade 3: (80, 30, 10, 5, 5)

Juvenile Filly and Filly Sprint Races would receive no points.

Don't agree with just letting the BC Juvenile Champ in because of greats like Anees, Brocco and Action This Day.

NoLogic

04/24/2008 11:44 am

I composed a post last night and it was considered spam. WHY? Does anyone know what the deal is, or how to contact someone to find out? What's the point of joining to post if you are considered spam for unknown reason. No wonder you just see the same posters over and over.

KrimsonKat

04/24/2008 12:26 pm

I don't mind an owner cross entering horses. If they want to pay the extra $$$, then fine. The derby needs to form an also-elibigle list.

As for a system to get the best 20 horses in the gate on derby day, I'm all for it. But coming up with a system that makes everyone happy...meaning horse owners, trainers, fans, track owners, etc., will not be easy. The good news is that a system is already in place, so it is possible to tweak it and come up with something better. This can't be as bad as the BCS (sorry for the football analogy in a horse blog) and NCAA Footall.

We are less than a week from drawing post positions! I'm getting antsy...

justin9976

04/24/2008 3:11 pm

I agree that it needs to be tweaked a bit. But as far as owners crying that their horses deserve to be in over some of the others above them, give me a break. Race your horse more then 4 or 5 times and it won't be a problem. If Denis of Cork doesn't get in, quite frankly, he doesn't deserve it. He should've been a lock and the owners are reaping what they sow. Here's an idea. Have a minimum amount of races at say 8, 5 of those stakes, that must be run to get into the Derby. This would force owners to run their horses and most of the aforementioned problems are solved. As far as the fillies goes, I think it's a more interesting race if more of them entered. I think two spots should be reserved for the top earning fillies if they decide to take them. Would more deserving horses miss out? Not in my book, if you can't crack the top 18, what're the chances you're going to win anyway?

moon exalt

04/24/2008 4:21 pm

Mac - Great blog. I was thinking about this very issue last night, and while I agree with some of those that say no system would be perfect, I absolutely believe that a points system like the one you proposed would put everyone on more equal footing. I also liked the idea of strategic scratches being heavily penalized, but even more than that, I think - and this is just a personal opinion - that cross entering between the Derby and the Oaks shouldn't be allowed. No mistakes here now, I definitely think that fillies should be allowed to run in the Derby if their connections think they belong, and I wish more would give it a shot (I can see why more don't though, especially since there's not many, if any, graded preps for the girls @ 1 1/8) but that seems that they should have to commit to one or the other. I don't like the idea of forcing trainers/owners to run their horses by setting up a minimum number of races to get into the Derby. We can complain all we want, but the nature of the game HAS changed, and while it would be nice to encourage people to run their horses more, it would not be nice to force them to consider putting the game above what's best for the horse, which we see happen enough as it is with the Derby. I mean, how impressed was I when they didn't run Cobalt Blue last year? Last thing: I think the Juvenile Champ should have to earn his way in as a three-year-old, just like everyone else. Otherwise why not just make all the two-year-old races count just as much as the three-year-old races? Juvenile Champ he may be, but all the races happened at the age of two.

rumped6

04/24/2008 4:47 pm

Checking the spam system

rumped6

04/24/2008 5:05 pm

Sorry, just didn't wanna waste a lotta time and be told I'm "spamming" - whatever the hell the unannounced criteria are (suspicion: one of the "bloggers" didn't like something critical y'wrote, and is playing games with you).
As for the Derby design, nice, but only a beginning.
Since I came to the game late in life, I don't buy all the "sacred" stuff, especially when it's helping kill the game.
The Derby is way too important to be for three-year-olds. For the long-range good of the breed, and the game, prize money and prestige should be pushed, as far as humanly possible, toward the four and five and six-year olds.
So, briefly, threes should participate, when they are ready and healthy, in any number of "festivals" all over the country, wherein good performances would qualify them for the Triple Crown - which would be open to all horses four years old and up.
Would prevent owners and trainers with short eyes falling prey to "Derby Fever" when the only one liable to get sick/damaged is a young, promising horse. Would stop the nonsense wherein too many of our best stop racing at three. Would improve stamina and durability of the breed, since the champion fours and fives would be at the heart of a new breeding dynamic, as a result of their being allowed to grow into their bodies at a pace dictated by distinctive makeup, not a rush to be somethin' they're not ready to be first Saturday in May as threes, and proving their worth over a longer and saner and ultimately more challenging career - a parallel might be drawn with the number of young pitchers in baseball who ruin their arms before the human skeleton is best able to handle that unusual stress.
So, nice work, as is customary, Mac, but you and others gotta start thinking about and pushing more fundamental changes. The only thing the Derby explosion has been good for is that one race, that one day - not the game.

NoLogic

04/24/2008 5:06 pm

Well, I posted last night that I agreed with McBride. Totally. Won't try to repost, but

I did want to know if Mr. McBride knew if the powers that be at Churchhill are in agreement that a new method to qualify is in order.

NoLogic

04/24/2008 5:26 pm

Since Derby is American event, maybe only earnings in USA should count. We can't control purses outside the USA that can automatically catapult a horse into the qualifies column.

NoLogic

04/24/2008 5:33 pm

Rumped6, you make some very good points with the best interests of the horse coming first.

derbyme

04/24/2008 5:37 pm

Mac,

Posted on justin's blog re: this topic. I proposed a graded earning's multiplier, but I can see the value in your point system as well. It certainly upholds tradition, but it also drastically undermines the attempts of Delta Downs and Sunland Park to gain graded status for their races. Now, I agree that 2yo races should count less, but I think people are mad about the Delta Jackpot because it hasn't attracted the big names. I'm guessing that with what has happened this year, they'll get a much better field next year, and people will want the top finishers in that race to make the Derby. People at Delta and Sunland have been trying and trying for years to get graded status, and a system that devalues the purses they offer will be a big hit to those efforts. Trainers have to be smarter about where they point horses, and after this year, I'm sure the Jackpot will attract a field at least as strong as this year's Arkansas Derby.

I propose the last 5 in are chosen by committee, the bubble teams can cross their fingers and hope their name pops up. It would be great drama.

derbyme

04/24/2008 5:43 pm

Justin, like your spirit about getting horses to run, but I'm not sure forcing races into them is in the best interest of the horse. If Dennis of Cork doesn't get in because his owners were worried about a bounce, then good riddance. But I like their conservative method better than forcing their horses in an attempt to get graded earnings. Better than what Dogwood did to Atoned anyway...

zhorse

04/24/2008 6:22 pm

The simplest methods are usually best. Committee can make it messy, that's why a number system like graded earning work well. The problem comes when a horses gets a win so big he need not train or prove himself again for many months. What many people want is to see their horses prove themselves every month. I propose the following:

Most top three finishes as a three year old.
Ties revert to graded earnings.

Three finishes in the top three in graded races will likely get you in. Although with this rule trainers would be incourage to race their horses every month to ensure enough top three finishes. We would get a better idea of how well our favorite horses are improving.

z

Guiltfree

04/24/2008 7:19 pm

You need to do a little more research on the economic model of the horse racing industry before outlining such a plan that would be the polar opposite of the financial objectives (which drives the decisions). The fairness of the Derby line-up is far from the most important issue here.

So what if the oil men want to pay outlandish purses and it potentially affects the list of Derby contenders. Eventually, the better horses will compete in the overseas races because that's where the money is.

The current system isn't perfect, but neither is the drawn out post season playoffs in major league sports. Neither are going to be changed if the alternative negatively impacts the business.

derbyme

04/24/2008 8:01 pm

Guiltfree,

Agreed in part. The industry is driven by money. But the money is earned in the breeding sheds. The Jackpot and the Winstar are worth a ton of cash, but struggled to draw big names who want Gr.1s to make a stallion. The trainers will adjust, though, because making the Derby is largely as important as getting the Gr. 1 winner. I'm sure this year's Delta Jackpot will be a great race with big names, and no one will say it gave undeserving horses a shot. People got mad because Turf War won the Jackpot. If Tale of Ekati beat Z Humor and Gayego in the Jackpot, no one would be complaining about the system. As it is, the race has received large amounts of attention as a key graded money opportunity, and if it is graded again next year, it will draw a much much better field.

Disagree on drawn out post seasons. Everyone loves the NFL Playoffs. MLB is more popular than ever, largely due to the wild cards which keep half the teams in contention into September. Nevertheless, I think the system could be changed to value current form over juvenile form. Again, I'd love to see the final few picked by committee then anounced ceremoniously.

Calvin Carter

04/25/2008 12:26 am

Mac,

Great post!

I think that the point system for the Kentucky Derby is long overdue and I applaud you addressing this important issue. If change is ever going to come, I believe that it will take more media personalities to speak out about this issue.

In the meantime, what can we, the average horse racing fan, do to have an impact to bring about change to this game we all love?

Barry,

I remember that you also proposed the point system last year.

ryanmoseley,

I like Gayego and Z Fortune for the Kentucky Derby but Big Brown may be the horse to beat. He’s blazing fast but unlike War Pass I believe he has the stamina go the Kentucky Derby distance.

My concern is his lack of foundation.

If he can overcome that then I don’t think it matters if Big Brown rates or goes to the lead. In fact it may be best if he went to the lead if he is indeed a “freak” as some people have speculated.

Here’s a video of another thoroughbred that could carry his speed for 1 ¼ miles:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0-MRD9QutB8

Spend a Buck had excellent foundation with 8 starts as a 2yo. His fractions for the Kentucky Derby were :23; 1:09 3/5; 1:34 4/5; 2:00 1/5. Big Brown’s fractions for the Florida Derby were :22.76; 45.83; 1:10.98; 1:35.18; 1:48.16.

I believe that Spend A Buck’s sire, Buckaroo, was also questionable to get a classic distance thoroughbred – Spend A Buck was from his second crop.

Here’s an interesting footnote: It will be interesting to see the post that Big Brown draws because a quick check of the stats shows that a lot of horses wire the field from the 9, 10, 11 and 12 post.

I’m still evaluating the situation. A lot will depend on post position. At the present, I’m looking at Gayego, Z Fortune and Big Brown over Colonel John, Smooth Air and Monba (maybe Bob Black Jack, Court Vision and Z Humor).

SoCalAl

04/25/2008 10:23 am

Hmmmm? I have pondered the idea of points and often wondered why the graded stakes system. I mean why should a race wun at a mile or less count, regardless of it's grading, I personally think this is not the best way to go. I truly agree with Mac that the points system is the best answer. I also believe that the current system is not only outdate but it is a system by which some of the best are left out. The current situation with Eight Bells will leave out a colt i would love to use in my exotics come derby day and that makes me a little upset but then again if the point system where in place, he probobly would not make it in.
So I really like the point system but it has a flaw or two I think. Honestly I feel it a system should be thought out by which colts from around the world would be atracted to come. I mean I hate to say it but year after year, especially with the graded earning system, we see 20 colts run in the Derby and only two or three going on to have solid careers. The days of Afirmed, Alysheba, Secreteriat, and all those older colts is long gone and I believe this new graded system could not resolve it. Do we really run the best three years in the world on Kentucky Derby Day anymore... The way I see it, it is a race whereby there is so much unpredictability that if you catch an exata or trifecta whether by luck or handicap, you come out way ahead.
I would however, love to see the days when colts running in a graded race where truly graded stakes caliber horses and remained so for the duration of there career which usually was well into their fifth and sixth year. I don't know what the hell I am talking about I guess but one of the biggest disapointments is when a colt running in the Derby wins and then he goes to stud, if I was owner, I would not pay a dime for service on any mare I owned. Like Mac says the oil money, I mean monopoly money, is just to lose and easily thrown about to build the hype or over hype of anything and that has been the case, especially the last few years. I could write on forever but I will summerize by saying this, we need a point system by which graded races at distances of 1 1/16 or greater, that include turf races with a lesser value asignment, that include filly races with a lesser value apointed to them, that include european group rated races at equivalent point values are all taken into consideration. Take out the late nominee out the picture as this allows people with loads of cash to feel their way and asign a 10 million dollar purse to the race. Then I think we will see the best take a shot at this race and not only that it will still have wagering value and I believe the fields will still be close to 20. Just a thought, one can dream right??
Have a great day,
SoCalAl

Calvin Carter

04/25/2008 1:37 pm

Barry,

Here's the jockey breakdown:

Kentucky Derby Jockey Finishes 1993-2007

2007 – 1. Street Sense: Calvin Borel; 2. Hard Spun: Mario Pino; 3. Curlin: Robby Albarado.
2006 – 1. Barbaro: Edgar Prado; 2. Bluegrass Cat: Ramon Dominguez; 3. Steppenwolfer – Robby Albarado.
2005 – 1. Giacamo: Mike Smith*; 2. Closing Argument: Cornelio Velasquez; 3. Afleet Alex: Jeremy Rose.
2004 – 1. Smarty Jones: Stewart Elliot; 2. Lion Heart: Mike Smith*; 3. Imperialism: Kent Desormeaux.
2003 – 1. Funny Cide: Jose Santos; 2. Empire Maker: Jerry Bailey; 3. Peace Rules: Edgar Prado.
2002 – 1. War Emblem: Victor Espinoza; 2. Proud Citizen: Mike Smith*; 3. Perfect Drift: Eddie Delahoussaye.
2001 – 1. Monarchos: Jorge Chavez; 2. Invisible Ink: John Velazquez; 3. Congaree: Victor Espinoza.
2000 – 1. Fusaichi Pegasus: Kent Desormeaux; 2. Aptitude: Alex Solis;
3. Impeachment: Craig Perret.
1999 – 1. Charismatic: Chris Antley; 2. Menifee: Pat Day; 3. Cat Thief: Mike Smith*.
1998 – 1. Real Quiet: Kent Desormeaux; 2. Victory Gallup: Alex Solis; 3. Indian Charlie: Gary Stevens.
1997 – 1. Silver Charm: Gary Stevens; 2. Captain Bodgit: Alex Solis; 3. Free House: David Flores.
1996 – 1. Grindstone: Jerry Bailey; 2. Cavonnier: Chris McCarron; 3. Prince of Thieves: Pat Day.
1995 – 1. Thunder Gulch: Gary Stevens; 2. Tejano Run: Jerry Bailey; 3. Timber Country: Pat Day.
1994 – 1. Go For Gin: Chris McCarron; 2. Strodes Creek: Eddie Delahoussaye; 3. Blumin Affair: Jerry Bailey.
1993 – 1. Sea Hero: Jerry Bailey; 2. Prairie Bayou: Mike Smith*; 3. Wild Gale: Shane Sellers.

*Mike Smith has one 1st, three 2nds and one 3rd. Kent Desormeaux has two 1sts and two 3rd. Alex Solis has three 2nds and one 3rd. Victor Espinoza has one 1st and one 3rd . Edgar Prado has one 1st and one 3rd.

Calvin Carter

04/25/2008 1:39 pm

Barry,

Correction. Kent Desormeaux has two 1sts and one 3rd. Alex Solis has three 2nds. Sorry about that.

barryrmitchell

04/26/2008 11:42 pm

Interesting analysis from 2000 and forward. Many of the Jockey's which rode and hit the board with their mounts came back to win the Derby. No Jockey has repeated in the 2000's, I can't tell if any of the jockey's which hit the board in the 2000's are riding in the Derby this year. Is there a publish list for Jockey's selected their mounts yet? or is that still questionable?

I am sure, I won't be betting any Jockeys which have won the Derby in the 2000's.
That eleiminates the favorite Big Brown, with Kent who won in 2000

These are not the same racing times as 1990's when multiple Jockey's repeated.