Comments on: WILL DERBY FIELD SIZE BE REDUCED?

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:38:40 +0000

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.

By: Priscilla Peabody

Priscilla Peabody — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:28:35 +0000

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.

By: Lin

Lin — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:13:09 +0000

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.

By: wesly

wesly — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:00:43 +0000

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.

By: Chuck Wagon

Chuck Wagon — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:28:11 +0000

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.

By: Craig

Craig — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:21:24 +0000

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.

By: Glimmerglass

Glimmerglass — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:54:31 +0000

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.

By: Damian Runyan

Damian Runyan — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:39:02 +0000

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.

By: Michael Cusortelli

Michael Cusortelli — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:04:22 +0000

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?

By: Superfecta

Superfecta — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:47:31 +0000

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.