I'm going to go ahead and trust Carl Nafzger on this one:

"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."

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/story/_ ... ing-system

I think your objections are vastly overstated. The Breeders' Cup Juvenile is a $2 million G1 championship race, and it stands on it's own. Talented 2yos are still going to be pointed there. The Hopeful and Del Mar are going to continue to be important steps to other big races, if not the Derby. To me, the one obvious effect this change will have on 2yo stakes races is that horses bred to be better with age and distance will no longer be pushed into baby stakes races. I don't think that necessarily hurts anyone - certainly not the horses.

You don't think encouraging horses to skip their 2YO seasons is going to hurt horse development? Honestly? I'm pretty sure every trainer in the country would tell you that for most horses, running as a 2YO only helps, not hurts, horses in their care.

Did you not read anything that has been written here? Saratoga and Del Mar 2YO races are meaningless. So instead of the great future routers that I mentioned earlier running in those races, you're going to have a bunch of bred for early speed sprinters. Do you really think that is a sustainable model for 2YO racing in this country?

Dude, the Breeders Cup Juvenile is worth the same amount as the Royal Lodge Stakes, a race, by my count, that has produced exactly zero Kentucky Derby starters. On what planet does this make sense?

Do you like to watch the Breeders Cup Juvenile? If so, better watch it while you can because I guarantee you the Breeders Cup aren't going to keep ploughing money into a race that won't even get its winner into the Kentucky Derby.

And there's nothing preventing them from doing that, if they feel their horse will benefit. But for horses who won't benefit from being rushed into stakes company, they'll no longer be penalized for racing in allowances or just continuing their training instead.


I already ignored this once, because it's a stupid question, but if it will make you feel better, yes, I've read "anything" that's been written here.


Hyperbole.


Horses running in races they've been bred for? Sustainable? Of course not!


Valid complaint, and as with the Illinois Derby, I'm sure a compelling case can be made to amend (though our British friends may protest). The good news is that the schedule is not set in stone for all time, and in fact will be reviewed and potentially amended yearly, so there's that.


Pure speculation, but ok. I'll go back to what I said before - if the idea is to have horses in the Derby field ready to compete for the Derby, it sure doesn't make sense to guarantee a spot to a horse who wins a much-shorter race 6 months earlier, prestigious and rich though that race may be. I strongly doubt this change would kill this race any more than it would kill juvenile racing in general. I suppose we'll see, assuming the change goes into effect as planned.

Nobody posts more without actually answering a counterpoint than Paul Heinrich. I learned this long ago. He's like the David freaking Stern of the SIM community.

This is the last I'll address you on this issue because I honestly believe you don't really understand much about real horse racing (though I suppose you're solid on the SIM - why else would you believe that only horses with sprinter pedigrees should run in the Hopeful and Del Mar Futurity?) - and I mean that with all due respect - but I'm not sure there's much else to say to someone who honestly thinks 2YO racing can survive for an extended period when the main goal of pretty much every American horse who's ever hit the track (the Derby) has rendered 2YO stakes races meaningless.

In any event, I have to imagine the outcry from places like Saratoga and DMTC is going to be so loud that the Hopeful, Saratoga Special, Sanford, Best Pal, and Del Mar Futurity will end up getting much bigger roles in the Derby points system. Because recent winners of those races like Lookin at Lucky, Afleet Alex, Roman Ruler, Timber Country, Dehere, and Forty Niner (not even including Secretariat, Affirmed, Tom Fool, Hail to Reason, Devil Diver, Buckpasser, Foolish Pleasure, Needles, Nashua, Whirlaway, Sun Briar, or Regret) really were bred to to sprint as we've just learned, not to mention the great Man o' War himself lost his one and only race in...the Sanford. He might not even have qualified for the Derby (if Sam Riddle had chose to run him there) in 1920 if Paul Heinrich had his way.

Wow, Slots burn! Again!

Honest question Slots - how did you get so far in life with no sense of humor? Neat trick.

Anyway, moral of the story - if you disagree with Slots, you must not have read any of what he just wrote. *shrug*

Oh by the way, "King of Obfuscation" is starting to look like high praise, from someone who just posted this paragraph...



Let's follow your not-Ronnie-Dee logic here. Because I would support a system which does not penalize horses for skipping races they weren't bred for, this means I think all past winners of those races WERE ACTUALLY BRED for those races, and further, not forcing horses NOT bred for those races to ACTUALLY race in those races is going to A) cause those horses to fail at racing later, and B) cause those races to fail in general.

Consider me obfuscated.

I said I had said my last piece, but now I just found out Paul also doesn't know a ton about breeding either. Nobody breeds a horse to go 6-7 furlongs. It's just not how the business works. This isn't the SIM. Horses that run 7f well don't always stop going a mile.

Moreover, just because a horse doesn't appear to be bred to run a distance under a mile doesn't mean he or she can't be really good at it. Winning the Hopeful, for instance, has traditionally been a harbinger of later greatness as the PP's of pretty much every Hopeful winner ever would attest.

Anyway, we're moving away from the key issue here, and that is the lack of worth given to foundation-building 2YO racing by the new Derby rules. Horses who don't run at two and then enter the Derby fray as 3YO's rarely have long careers. Curlin is probably the outlier with a grand total of 16 starts. Over/under on whether Bodemeister gets there?

Other recent runners who've gone that route include super talented runners like Showing Up (10 lifetime starts), Dunkirk (five career starts - only one afte the Derby), Summer Bird (eight career starts), and Pulpit (six career starts - never ran again after the Derby). So really, if we want horses to hang back and take their 2YO seasons easy, we're also not going to have a ton stick around very long based on the 44 horses who've tried the Derby without a 2YO race since Apollo did it in 1882.

Absolutely, and if you had read what I actually said, instead of going through all those gymnastics to make what I said into what you wanted to argue, you'd realize I don't disagree with that at all. Good thing nothing is stopping trainers from running their horses at those distances, if they feel it will benefit them.

But there's still quite a distance between "this horse is not bred to sprint and/or run at a stakes level at 2, and shouldn't be penalized for not doing those things" and "Paul thinks all the horses who won those races were bred to sprint" isn't there?

I think every horse is bred to be able to run at two. Some might get better at three, some might not.

ETA - horses who can't get to the track at two probably shouldn't be running in the Derby in May of their 3YO season. I think adding that a horse must have a 2YO start would be a worthwhile addition to this new points system.

You could probably write a list a mile long of horses with two year old foundation who disappear after taking part in the triple crown. The lack of horses who try the triple crown without running at two isn't a really large sample size in comparison to those who do.

I never liked the graded stakes earning system and am glad that it is being revamped, that being said as I've thought about the new plan more it definately has flaws.

First, the new plan being based solely on timing causes a lot of its problems. I think the Illinois Derby is gone because it is run during the period where races are worth 100 points, and it doesn't make sense to include it in that group (granted it doesn't make sense to include the UAE Derby there either and they do). I think a better system would have been basing points on grade that way Churchill doesn't decide which races matter the graded stakes committee does.

I do like the decreased emphasis on 2yo and sprint races. Yes some great horses have won races like the hopeful, but the ones that truly belonged in the derby also won big 3yo preps. This year Liason was number 13 on the graded stakes list despite never hitting the board at 3, thats not ok. The delta jackpot is a win and you're in, and how much has that race held up as a derby prep?

THAT says it all.


This whole thing is just plain stupid, and it makes my head hurt. I'm with Slots in thinking it's more about manipulating things so certain tracks benefit. These changes won't produce a Triple Crown winner. Racing needs to take a good, long look at the eleven TC winners that came from the era where horses ran more frequently, ran through minor injuries, that by today's standards are career ending, and go from there.





The idea of NOT running a horse in sprints at two because it doesn't have a sprint pedigree isn't quite right. Every horse is different, some do outrun their pedigree, and some horses are ready to run earlier in their two year old season, regardless of what distance their pedigree may hint at. Running in sprints is part of building a foundation in many young horses. Some really good horses (and even cheap claimers) can win going short or long, you just don't see it that often these days (Ghostzapper is the most recent horse I can remember at the moment), with the big money in routes, lighter racing schedules and possibly the fear of running against the more "speedy" pedigrees so many breeders are churning out now. MANY winners of Triple Crown races have won sprint stakes at two, the latest Union Rags, who won the six and a half furlong Sanford last year.
Derby bound horses that would bypass running in sprint stakes at two just because they're not "sprinters" could lose valuable experience and seasoning.