Did Garrett Gomez make the right decision choosing Pioneerof the Nile over Dunkirk in the Kentucky Derby?

Garrett Gomez and his agent, Ron Anderson, made the right decision to stick with Pioneerof the Nile, rather than Dunkirk, in the 135th running of the Kentucky Derby (G1). I have admittedly been a Pioneerof the Nile partisan for a few months now, as readers of an early Point/Counterpoint may recall, so I am of course thrilled. But quite apart from my own personal rooting interests, the decision is a perfectly logical one; it is the percentage play.

While Dunkirk is an exceptionally talented horse, he is attempting to buck a nearly 127-year old trend: not since Apollo in 1882 has a horse who was unraced as a two-year-old gone on to win the Kentucky Derby. To be sure, other "Derby rules" have been broken in recent years, but the lack of juvenile foundation remains a serious impediment. Just two years ago, it proved to be an insuperable obstacle to the mighty Curlin, who wound up a distant third to Street Sense. Curlin went on to reign as a two-time Horse of the Year, and North America's all-time leading money winner, but even he could not overcome the unraced-at-two disadvantage in the Derby. If this jinx is ever laid to rest, it will most likely occur in a year when one horse is head and shoulders above the rest, not in a strong year like 2009, when we are fortunate enough to have a deep crop of three-year-olds.

I think the world of Dunkirk, and believe that he ran a monster race when runner-up to Quality Road in the Florida Derby (G1). He's had to come a long way in a comparatively short time, however, and that is not a Derby-winning formula. In contrast, Pioneerof the Nile has gained invaluable seasoning from his five-race juvenile campaign, at four different tracks, three times facing Grade 1 rivals.

Moreover, Pioneerof the Nile has put that experience to good use, becoming a win machine since transferring to Bob Baffert and teaming up with Gomez. Not only is the dark bay a perfect four-for-four for his new barn, but he has found a way to win in a variety of circumstances, even those that worked against him.

From Gomez's perspective, how could you take off a horse that's never lost with you in the saddle? A horse trained by a three-time Derby winner in Baffert, who has proven his mastery at getting a horse ready to peak on the first Saturday in May? A horse who sent two of his defeated rivals packing to friendlier confines -- I Want Revenge, who subsequently towered over his New York opponents in the Gotham S. (G3) and the Wood Memorial (G1), and Papa Clem, a game winner of the Arkansas Derby (G2)?

How could Gomez throw Pioneerof the Nile overboard in favor of Dunkirk -- a horse with a crushing historical burden to overcome? One trained by a superb horseman in Todd Pletcher, who nevertheless is still in search of his first Derby win? A horse who must prove that he can turn the tables on his Florida Derby conqueror? A horse who has never raced anywhere but Gulfstream Park?

I'm sure that, by now, many of you are screaming an answer to these questions: "Dirt! Dunkirk's proven on dirt, and Pioneerof the Nile isn't!"

It's a fair point. None of us will know for certain, until the race is run, whether Pioneerof the Nile will take to dirt as beautifully as he has taken to turf and synthetic. Baffert thinks he will move up on it. I'm convinced that he will handle the dirt because his pedigree strongly suggests it. Also, although he has yet to race on dirt, he trained on it quite a bit as a two-year-old for Bill Mott, so it's not exactly foreign to him.

It's worth emphasizing that several high-profile horses have thrived when employing the synthetic-to-dirt angle. I Want Revenge became the poster boy for this phenomenon with his scintillating dirt debut in the Gotham, but he is hardly alone. We've also witnessed the rise of triple-surface threats like Einstein (Brz) and Cocoa Beach (Chi), who are top-class on dirt, turf and synthetic alike. Interestingly, Einstein has captured major events on both Santa Anita's Pro-Ride and Churchill's dirt, which is exactly what Pioneerof the Nile is poised to accomplish.

To sum up, just because some excellent dirt horses struggle on synthetic, we should not turn around and claim that horses who have done well on synthetic must therefore not like dirt. It simply does not follow. Let's not forget that, in past Breeders' Cups, several first-rate Europeans turned in terrific efforts in their first attempts on the dirt.

There's the rub: if he's good enough. That's what it all boils down to, in the end, and that's why the Pioneerof the Nile vs. Dunkirk choice was difficult. Both colts have demonstrated serious ability, both are still improving, both are bred to stay the 1 1/4-mile trip, each would be a worthy wearer of the roses.

Pioneerof the Nile is not the flashiest performer. Rather, like many great champions of our sport, he gives the impression of one who only does what is required, no more, no less. Only he knows how much he has in reserve as he idles in the stretch and makes Gomez work. I think Gomez has an inkling too. He suspects that Pioneerof the Nile has more -- much more -- to give.

Should Dunkirk defy history and win the Derby, Gomez and Anderson may understandably second-guess themselves. But, in truth, they would have been going out on an historical limb to ride Dunkirk. In comparison, the dirt question for Pioneerof the Nile is a much shorter limb to go out on. Had they spurned Pioneerof the Nile, and he went on to Derby glory without Gomez, they would probably feel even more disconsolate. For how would one explain giving up the ride on a streaking horse, with whom you are unbeaten?