WILL DERBY FIELD SIZE BE REDUCED?
Bob Evans, president and chief executive officer of Churchill Downs Inc., said during a Friday morning press conference at the company’s flagship track in Louisville, Ky., that the CDI board of directors discussed the possibility of reducing the field size of the Kentucky Derby during a regularly scheduled meeting in New Orleans last week.
The Derby’s maximum field size of 20 is under scrutiny in the wake of the death of the filly Eight Belles in last year’s Derby, even though her fatal injuries occurred after the finish and apparently were unrelated to the number of runners or trouble she may have encountered in the race. The Derby traditionally has the largest field of any race in the United States. No Derby starter has fallen during the running of the race since 1970, when Holy Land clipped heels and fell going into the far turn.
By contrast, Breeders’ Cup fields are limited to 14 starters.
Maximum field size of 14 horses and the prohibition of fillies running against males were considerations in an original discussion document circulated by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association to industry leaders who formed what ultimately came to be known as the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance.
Field size or sex limitations were not part of the final recommendations of the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance Pledge, which can be viewed by clicking here.
Evans said CDI has devoted a great deal of time and resources to examine a wide range of safety issues since the death of Eight Belles and has adopted all of the safety recommendations made by committees formed earlier this year by the Jockey Club and Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.
The CDI board discussed the reduction of the field size, Evans said, though he gave no indication whether a change will be made. “For now, it’s the way it’s always been,” he said. Nominations to the Triple Crown races, including the Derby, state that the size of the Derby can be “up to 20 horses.”
A reduction in field size might not be greeted favorably by horse owners and trainers who throughout the winter and spring closely follow whether their 3-year-olds are in the leading 20 contenders, based on money earned in graded or group stakes races. Churchill recently announced a marketing agreement with Kempton racecourse in England that will guarantee one spot in the Derby field to the winner of the Kentucky Derby Challenge Stakes, a 1 1/8-mile race on Polytrack, on March 18.
Handle on the Derby would also decline in the event of a reduction in the field size. Evans said Churchill has researched Derby handle in relationship to field size but would not say how much handle might fall. A reduction from 20 to 14 starters would also cost Churchill Downs $300,000 in lost entry and starting fees ($25,000 to enter and $25,000 to start).
Evans discussed the Derby field size and other safety measures following a media briefing announcing that Oaks and Derby ticket prices, with a few exceptions, would be frozen in 2009. “Our slowing economy is having a pronounced effect, and many of our customers have been affected in various ways as well,” Evans said. “Although the Kentucky Derby occupies an elite spot in the world of sports and tickets are typically in high demand, we want to keep our price points at the same level to help our customers in this challenging economic climate.” Click here to read more about the ticket price freeze.
The only exceptions will be scheduled price increases in the 30-year personal seat license program, which are coming off a three-year price freeze; some luxury suites and Marquee Village accommodations; and reserved seats in the infield.
Churchill Downs is also offering the opportunity for on-track customers to buy Derby reserved seats in a sweepstakes running each day from tomorrow (Saturday, Nov. 22) through Nov. 29. Individuals whose names are drawn will be eligible to buy two Derby tickets ranging in price from $88 to $207. (Derby tickets range in price from $88 for infield reserved seats to $693 on millionaire’s row.) One thousand of the tracks 55,000 seats are being offered in the sweepstakes. For more details, click here.
Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: bob evans, Breeders' Cup, CDI, cdi board of directors, churchill downs, Churchill Downs Inc., derby field size, eight belles, Horse Racing, horse racing safety, Horse Welfare, Jockey Club, kempton, kentucky derby, kentucky derby 135, kentucky derby tickets, kentucky oaks, NTRA, ntra safety and integrity alliance, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, TOBA, Triple Crown
November 21st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The proposed field size-reduction assumes that CD management will willingly surrender the annual option of log-rolling at least five owners - whose horses have no shot but have made the earnings list - into the race.
In an industry heavily dependent on cooperation from wealthy, quite independent people, the option of reducing the KD field size will have about as much appeal as lending another $500 million to Stronach.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Its about time. The derby has become a ridiculous stampede because there are horses there that dont belong. I hope that money doesnt become an issue with this. I would rather see a good run race with a smaller purse than that full field of 20 with the biggest purse than can be. then maybe we will get a Derby winner who isnt injured or happens to be good enough to win another race, which is becoming the exception rather than the rule.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Very interesting; the field size is something that bothers me every year (at least every year since it’s become ‘traditional’ to have 20 horses). I’ve added some notes about it over here.
Good news on the ticket prices, in any case.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Good idea to limit the number of Derby starters to 14. Let’s make it a handicappable and playable race again.
Bad idea to keep fillies from the Derby, though. Heck, was it that long ago that a filly won the Belmont?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
This is long overdue. The traffic problems created by such a large field lends to the the trip rather than the best horse as the deciding factor. Setting aside the last two Derby winners (Street Sense and Big Brown) the betting favorite wins at a much lower rate than statistics for any other single race. Quite frankly, I’m tired of wealthy spoiled owners and a greedy track influencing the field size. If their high priced horses and thinly spread trainers can’t bring their horses into the top 14 in earnings by the end of every April, their horse doesn’t deserve to run in the Derby. This is a race not a lottery.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Don’t forget CDI already “gave away” one starting slot to the winner of the 2009 Kentucky Derby Challenge Stakes at Kempton (England) to be held in March. That means the rest of the gang will be fighting for just 13 posts if indeed the field is held to 14 gates.
The ripple effect would of course be that races like the Delta Jackpot (G3) now at $750k down from $1M become all the more important to win in order to bank the graded stakes.
Economically speaking I’d assume that Churchill - and all wagering outlets - would also see a reduction in the amount wagered. The larger fields open the door to more people placing wagers then relatively smaller fields.
1974 had 23 starters and 1976 had just 9 horses. It historically has varied.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Very bad idea. Would Giacomo or Closing argument even been allowed in the field. Half the lure of the Derb is cashing Big Exactas and trifectas. Afleet Alex had the rail and didn’t win. Risen Star went 14 wide and lost. That’s Horse Racing. Eight Belles had a clear trip. Ive seen horses check in a 4 horse field.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Churchill won’t go along with this. It is all about the money for them. The safety of the horses and riders comes second. This should have been done years ago. When there is a multi-horse spill and a horse or rider is trampled to death on national television, they will finally limit the field. Not until then.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
It is foolish to reduce the derby field for ’safety’ reasons. The fact that it is a huge field causes the jockeys to be very cognizant of their positioning, hence the lack of accidents. The two most famous “close calls” of recent years in the TC are Afleet Alex in the Preakness and Alysheba in the Derby, neither of whch had a damn thing to do with a large field. Reducing the field makes the race less of an event and more of just another big race while whittling away at another tradition of the sport. Of course the idea that fillies would be banned is absurd. Horseracing is in danger of really painting itself into a corner with all these useless ’safety’ changes that sound great on the internet but in reality have little to no effect. The truth is that it is a dangerous sport and accidents and breakdowns are going to happen regardless of these and other rule changes and what will we do when that happens? The people who will condemn the sport will condemn it regardless of measures the sport takes. Appeasing them is stupid. Leave the Derby alone. It is the one thing in the sport that isnt broken.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
It has to be a shorter race, safer for the horse and safer for the jockey. If they are going to race 2 year olds that is the smartest thing they could do. I would deduct the entries also. Considering all the races it is a small percent that breaks down, but those few do a job on the owners, trainers, jocks and the public. No body wants to see the horse they bet on go down. It was long ago but I am still sick over Ruffian. It would be nice to watch a race and cheer your horse without holding your breath and looking away.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I am for keeping fillies out of the Derby, but not for safety reasons. A filly takes the spot of a colt whose value might benefit enormously from just hitting the board in the Derby. Winning the Oaks does about as much for the filly as winning the Derby with regard to her value. It seems discriminatory that fillies have the choice to run against males, and even get a weight break, but males cannot run against fillies even if they were to be weighted appropriately. Why can’t there be a race exclusively for males? The Derby should be for boys and the Oaks for girls. Make the purses equal. That’s not sexist, that’s fair.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:38 am
This is VERY sensible, though fillies should not be denied entry — who won The Arc this year?
And I agree about “fixing” who qualifies. And perhaps this will usher in some dialogue about the whole graded stakes system (and handicap races) which is an abysmal mess, to be polite about it.
See you at the windows.