CD Changes to Point System for Kentucky Derby Qualification!

[Diver52]

I'm going to give CDI the benefit of the doubt and suppose that they are TRYING to come up with a fair and sensible system. But would anything prevent them from skewing it towards their own tracks, or tracks that "paid up?" What would happen if they removed the California tracks, or NYRA races? I mean, is there a limit?

[halo]

Im sure I must have missed somewhere where something was posted what was wrong with the old graded stakes earnings system. Did I miss something?

[Calypso]

Im sure I must have missed somewhere where something was posted what was wrong with the old graded stakes earnings system. Did I miss something?

If you did, then so did I. The only difference I see is that with this new system, CDI has the ability to add and remove qualifying races, thereby giving themselves more power over other tracks.

Now instead of independently setting their own purses for graded stakes, tracks are at the mercy of CDI for Derby qualifications.

[second_glance]

Ah, that makes sense. In a rather... terrible way. How easy would it be for them to threaten to remove points if another track crosses them? This is the sort of thing that should be left to a committee, not one track. And they can just do whatever they want, because who is going stop them? Man, racing needs some serious changes.

I really feel bad for Hawthorn. Their race produced a horse that placed in the Derby three years ago. You have to go back to 2003 for the La Derby. A real shame.

CDI-Arlington has been trying to get Hawthorne's spring dates.

[Calypso]

CDI-Arlington has been trying to get Hawthorne's spring dates.

So basically this is CDI's attempt at monopolizing. What could possibly go wrong. x.x

[second_glance]

Im sure I must have missed somewhere where something was posted what was wrong with the old graded stakes earnings system. Did I miss something?

Three things being cited: 2yos winning short-distance, high-purse races and thereby qualifying for the Derby; so many GS races that trainers could duck each other and run against very weak fields to get the money; and horses getting sufficient earnings either as 2yos or early 3yos to allow trainers to "train up" to the Derby for 4-6 weeks. That latter trend seemed to be increasing.

[Indychase]

It seems that lately, a lot of the better Derby horses were bred for, and ran initially on the turf. "Standard" breeding these days doesn't seem to cut it at a mile and a quarter. Obviously Churchill hasn't been watching who is running and winning in its biggest race.

They can still start out on the turf, as long as they switch to dirt for those high point preps as 3 year olds. That's the beauty of undervaluing the 2 year old races. Nothing anyone does in those races is going to matter all that much because the points are so heavily weighted towards the 3 year old races.

[Indychase]

I'm going to give CDI the benefit of the doubt and suppose that they are TRYING to come up with a fair and sensible system. But would anything prevent them from skewing it towards their own tracks, or tracks that "paid up?" What would happen if they removed the California tracks, or NYRA races? I mean, is there a limit?

I think if they go too far (like dumping NYRA) a good chunk of owners are going to tell them to pound sand. It is possible to have a good 3 year old and not run in the Derby -- there's lots of other prizes out there.

It wasn't that long ago that Spend a Buck dumped the Preakness for the Jersey Derby.

[Indychase]

Dang! Thanks for the link. I'll do them a little better, since I have pps going back to 1992 and don't want to waste all this work I'm also not sure how to award Funny Cide- they have him finishing second in the La Derby, but he technically was given second-place purse money while remaining in third. So I'll use that value instead.

I'll Have Another: 110
Animal Kingdom: 50
Super Saver: 61
Mine that Bird: 15
Big Brown: 100
Street Sense: 102
Barbaro: 110
Giacomo: 36
Smarty Jones: 160
Funny Cide: 60
War Emblem: 0
Monarchos: 140
Fusaichi Pegasus: 150
Charismatic: 34
Real Quiet: 72
Silver Charm: 60
Grindstone: 90
Go For Gin: 80
Thunder Gulch: 84
Sea Hero: 20
Lil E Tee: 92

Note that some of these are skewed a little high, because the Fla Derby and La Derby used to be run earlier. Still, this list clearly indicates that this system is flawless

But aren't horses like Giacomo, Charismatic, and MTB generally thought to be weak winners of the Derby? Anyone someone mentions Giacomo people groan.

[Diver52]

Suppose an impressive BCJ winner from a stamina-based pedigree has a minor injury and doesn't make it back to the races until March. Does his trainer throw him into a major stakes at a route first time back? Or what if he airs in a fast allowance, but then has a genuinely bad trip in the SA Derby or Wood? Fans are going to love that. I agree with the downgrading of juvenile sprints, and would agree with equally weighting all stakes in a given grade, but the route races in November and December aren't irrelevant. And the BCJ at least produces a name winner that casual fans might remember.

[Somnambulist]

But aren't horses like Giacomo, Charismatic, and MTB generally thought to be weak winners of the Derby? Anyone someone mentions Giacomo people groan.

I guess, but all those weak horses still won. It's racing - everything and anything is possible. It's not up to CDI to decide who does/doesn't get a change (not that you're saying anything like that).

We need centralization in racing.

[Indychase]

I guess, but all those weak horses still won. It's racing - everything and anything is possible. It's not up to CDI to decide who does/doesn't get a change (not that you're saying anything like that).

We need centralization in racing.

Well, it is their race, and as long as it's oversubscribed you need to cut horses out someway. I'd rather see the Giacomos and the Mine that Birds cut than others who might be better stamina-oriented 3 year olds who didn't run much at two.

Either way, the bottom quarter of the list (graded earnings or points) are horses that probably shouldn't be running, but there's no way they're cutting the field size -- entrants = money.

[Bast]

Who cares what they think? In general, why should we bend over backwards to accommodate foreign horses? With the exception of Dubai, what foreign programs regularly recruit American-raced horses?

Yes, Daddy Long Legs had such a good Derby experience. /sarcasm

The commercial breeders care about the state of racing. It's nice to be able to sell horses to people who are looking for stock that doesn't need a pharmacist to train. Brings up the selling prices...take a look at how often good horses run in Australia sometime...

[halo]

Well, it is their race, and as long as it's oversubscribed you need to cut horses out someway. I'd rather see the Giacomos and the Mine that Birds cut than others who might be better stamina-oriented 3 year olds who didn't run much at two.

Either way, the bottom quarter of the list (graded earnings or points) are horses that probably shouldn't be running, but there's no way they're cutting the field size -- entrants = money.

Bingo. You just stated what is so wrong with this. You would rather cut WINNERS OF THE DERBY, the horses who actually won!

The friggin world has gone insane....

[Bast]

Initial half-conscious impression is I strongly dislike how they've bumped it into "phases" and how the later phases are worth such ridiculous amounts whereas the early ones aren't. I like that they're aiming away from precocity with making the 2yo races less valuable, but yeesh, that seems a little extreme. BC Juv only worth 10 to the winner where some of the "3rd phase" races are worth 10x that?

Um, the idea is to have the best field on the first Saturday in May, not a field half. composed of the Hopeful 1-2-3, the BC Juvenile 1-2-3, etc. Horses do not stay the same. They grow. They change. And that's before considering training or mental issues.

That's why later races carry more points.

[Somnambulist]

Well, it is their race, and as long as it's oversubscribed you need to cut horses out someway. I'd rather see the Giacomos and the Mine that Birds cut than others who might be better stamina-oriented 3 year olds who didn't run much at two.

Either way, the bottom quarter of the list (graded earnings or points) are horses that probably shouldn't be running, but there's no way they're cutting the field size -- entrants = money.

Giacomo and MTB weren't stamina oriented? They WON the Derby.. they didn't belong? MTB ran superb for the entire TC series.

And yes, it's Churchill's race. It also was long before CDI came into effect. It's also racing's biggest day. This is what people care about when they're a casual fan. Take away the TC and people don't care. There is NO reason a single, private entity should be deciding how races like this (the same could be said for NYRA and the detention barn, I guess) should be handled.

[Indychase]

Bingo. You just stated what is so wrong with this. You would rather cut WINNERS OF THE DERBY, the horses who actually won!

The friggin world has gone insane....

Sure -- I'd rather cut weak winners, if they don't earn their way in. Maybe they would have garnered enough points because their trainers would have run them in different races.

I'd be happy if this system cuts the Optimizers, Flying Privates, and Bwana Bulls out too -- horses that clunk up enough earnings running 4th or 5th in enough G3s and G2s as 2 year olds and 3 year olds.

[Somnambulist]

Um, the idea is to have the best field on the first Saturday in May, not a field half. composed of the Hopeful 1-2-3, the BC Juvenile 1-2-3, etc. Horses do not stay the same. They grow. They change. And that's before considering training or mental issues.

That's why later races carry more points.

There isn't any reason why later races should carry more weight. They should be equal if such an idiotic system needs to exist. Unless the Dominican's of the world are somehow superior.

[Bast]

Suppose an impressive BCJ winner from a stamina-based pedigree has a minor injury and doesn't make it back to the races until March. Does his trainer throw him into a major stakes at a route first time back? Or what if he airs in a fast allowance, but then has a genuinely bad trip in the SA Derby or Wood? Fans are going to love that. I agree with the downgrading of juvenile sprints, and would agree with equally weighting all stakes in a given grade, but the route races in November and December aren't irrelevant. And the BCJ at least produces a name winner that casual fans might remember.

March?

Back in the not so old days, Secretariat started his 3 y o campaign in March and made 3 starts prior to the Kentucky Derby.

Trainers could learn how to get a horse fit enough to run more often than every 5 weeks.

[halo]

And a weak winner is what? One you dont like? Certainly not one that not only won the Derby, but placed in the Preakness and the Belmont. That weak one?

Or the weak one that won the Derby, placed in the Preakness, was grade 1 placed at 2, and won a grade 2 at 4. That weak one?

“Think of all the good horses that would have been kept out under the new system,” Baffert said. “(2009 Kentucky Derby winner) Mine That Bird wouldn’t have been able to get in, (2002 winner) War Emblem wouldn’t have been able to get in.

"I don’t like the way they valued the races – like the CashCall Futurity at Hollywood Park, that’s a very important race, and they give the winner of that 10 points. It’s one of those things where I don’t think the old system needed tweaking, but if they’re going to tweak anything, they need to tweak the draw and the field size.”


Hall of Fame trainer Carl Nafzger, who conditioned Derby winner Unbridled in 1990 along with 2007 victor Street Sense , agreed with Baffert over cutting the race’s field size and voiced concerns over what he called “manipulating” horses along the Derby trail.

“It’s not leaving the horse alone, leaving the trainer alone, letting them plot their own course to get there,” he said. “This way, once again, racetracks are starting to use horses to fit their agenda instead of allowing trainers to develop horses.”

Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...#ixzz1xoVVOzF1

Trainer Graham Motion, who won the Derby with Animal Kingdom in 2011 and finished fourth this year with Went the Day Well, said he was concerned over good horses being left out of the race regardless of qualification method.

“I question how many legitimate horses have been excluded from the previous system and how many would be excluded by this system,” Motion remarked. “I do realize there’s a gray area with horses qualifying via some of these really valuable 2-year-old races at some of the lesser tracks, but I don’t quite get the Illinois Derby being cut out, or the fact that the horse who wins the UAE Derby may wind up keeping out a horse like mine who won the Spiral.


Chip Wooley, who trained Mine That Bird, voiced disapproval of the new system via Facebook, while pointing out the credentials of his colt who went on to run second in the Preakness and third in the Belmont Stakes (gr. I) in 2009.

"Under this new system, Mine That Bird, who ran 1-2-3 in the Triple Crown and beat the [Santa Anita, Arkansas, Florida, and Louisiana Derby winners] in consecutive races would not have gotten to run in the Derby," Wooley wrote. "In Nascar you can change tires, rebuild your engine, and run week to week. Horses have a very limited number of races in them. Especially horses at this level."

I hope the idiots at CD who are implementing this cluster f*ck of a system will listen to the people they are affecting the most.