A Modest Proposal

            Instead of declaring jihad on Lasix and avoiding the resulting wasted time, energy, and ink debating the decision and whether or not two year old horses actually bled during the Breeder’s Cup, imagine if instead the Jockey Club chose a different path.  Imagine if they made a decision that would demonstrably improve the breed and actually help stabilize the value of bloodstock going forward?  By using its power over the registration of thoroughbreds, the Jockey Club should start reducing – gradually – the number of foals sired by a stallion that it will register in a given birth year.

            People have worried about the explosion of stallion books but there has been no mechanism to control the number of mares bred save for the calendar and the number of hours in a day.  However, the Jockey Club should set a maximum number of live foals from one stallion that it will register in a particular year for the Northern Hemisphere       (“Maximum Number”).  Then, in subsequent years the Maximum Number can be lowered.  While the stud farms may claim restraint of trade, there is no prohibition on breeding their stallion as many times as possible; there would only be a limit on the number of foals from that stallion that can be registered for a particular year.  In fact given losses to due miscarriage, still birth, and the like, a farm would still be able to breed to more mares than the Maximum Number.  Using the Jockey Club’s Report of Mares Bred for 2011 and 2012 provides some idea of where the initial maximum number could be set for foals of 2015. 

            In 2011, the Jockey Club reported that Congrats was bred to 205 mares, Giant’s Causeway was bred to 198, Bellamy Road to 192, Scat Daddy to 191, and Henrythenavigator bred to 189.  Just outside the top 5 were stallions like Candy Ride at 182 mares and Malibu Moon with 172 Northern Hemisphere mares and another 21 bred on Southern Hemisphere schedule.    

In 2012 as optimism returned to breeding, four stallions were bred to well over 200 mares with Cape Blanco seeing 220 mares, Scat Daddy breeding to 217, Kitten’s Joy breeding 213 mares, and Uncle Mo having 211 mares.  Oddly enough a sizeable gap opened in 2012 between these four stallions and the next group of stallions (Wilburn, Majestic Warrior, and Giant’s Causeway) at 169, 167, and 166 mares, respectively.

 Based on these figures, the Jockey Club could set the Maximum Number of live foals that it would register from one stallion in 2015 at 160 with an announcement of a schedule of gradual decreases over time.  Assuming approximately an 80% stands and nurses rate, this would allow a maximum stallion book of approximately 200 mares for 2014 as evidenced by the 2012 live foal reports for Congrats reflecting 205 mares bred and 161 live foals reported.  However, a Maximum Number of 160 would prevent stallion books of 210 or more mares barring bad luck or poor stallion fertility.  To account for “exceptionally fertile” years the Jockey Club could allow for the registration of a handful of foals beyond the Maximum Number provided that (i) the “additional” foals could not be registered (or sold) until they were yearlings to deter parties from “rolling the dice” and (ii) the “additional” foals would be reduced from the stallion’s “Maximum Number” in the subsequent year to deter stud farms from over breeding the stallion and hoping for miscarriages or still births. 

If the Jockey Club imposed the Maximum Number and announced a schedule to reduce the Maximum Number over time, it would limit over breeding to a handful of stallions while boosting the value of seasons and foals from those stallions by limiting supply, and give time for stallion farms and owners to adjust to the existence of the Maximum Number.  The Jockey Club could even exempt a first year stallion from the Maximum Number if that trade off were necessary to impose the Maximum Number.

While stallion farms and share owners may oppose any limit of seasons, it would only impact a handful of commercial stallions and should boost the value of the seasons in those stallions by limiting the supply.  As the books of the most commercial stallions fill, owners of mares who were shut out will “trade down” to other stallions who will likely be owned or managed by the same farms and share owners that might initially oppose the Maximum Number.  This proposal is not based on speculative science, does no harm to horses, and does not force fratricidal struggles between owners and trainers.  It might alter the rate of return on certain stallion deals and is therefore probably as radioactive as anything that could be suggested.  Anyway, back to the previously scheduled war on Lasix…

Comings and Goings

     With the almost mass retirement of this year's three year old crop (Bodemeister, Hansen, Union Rags, and Creative Cause) and the impending retirement of older horses like Stay Thirsty, Tapizar, and Brilliant Speed, I wondered how many stallions would be leaving the bluegrass of Kentucky (or retired) to make room for the new arrivals.  But, the larger question behind stallions relocations is why?  Why did these stallions move -- lack of commercial success, lack of progeny success, or victims of international exchange rates?  For owners and investors in stallions of 2013 they should wonder how many mares did these stallions serve that might be sent to my stallion?

    

    Below is a chart I compiled based on public announcements about stallion departures showing the stallion, the sire line, the Kentucky stud farm, the destination, and the number of mares bred in 2012 according to the Jockey Club.  

 

Stallion	Sire Line	Stud Farm Left	Destination	12 Mares Bred
Bob and John	Seeking the Gold (Mr. Prospector)	Pin Oak	New York	20
Courageous Cat	Storm Cat (Northern Dancer)	Lane's End	New York	46
Desert Party	Machiavellian (Mr. Prospector)	Darley	New York	67
El Corredor	Gone West (Mr. Prospector)	Hill N Dale	New York	19
Grand Slam	Gone West (Mr. Prospector)	Ashford	Death	31
Henny Hughes	Hennessey (Northern Dancer)	Darley	Australia	22
Henrythenavigator	Kingmambo (Mr. Prospector)	Ashford	Ireland	115
Holy Bull	Great Above	Darley	Pensioned	17
Kipling	Gulch (Mr. Prospector)	Crestwood	Oklahoma	23
Latent Heat	Maria's Mon (Wavering Monarch)	Woods Edge Farm	Oklahoma	36
Rock Hard Ten	Kris S (Roberto)	Lane's End	Korea	41
Rockport Harbor	Unbridled's Song (Mr. Prospector)	Darley	Pennslyvania	28
Street Sense	Machiavellian (Mr. Prospector)	Darley	Japan	114
Summer Bird	Unbridled (Mr. Prospector)	Winstar	Japan	141
Sun King	Summer Squall (Northern Dancer)	Darby Dan	Louisiana	31
Will He Shine	Deputy Minister (Northern Dancer)	Millenium	Saudi Arabia	6

    The most obvious conclusions from the chart are that New York remains a siren lure for stallions and that a Kentucky stallion must breed to roughly 40 mares to remain in Kentucky.  Aside from Desert Party at 67 mares you have a wide gap from stallions at or around 40 mares to those three stallions who were bred to more than 100 mares in 2012.  Those three stallions, Summer Bird, Street Sense, and Henrythenavigator, were seemingly relocated due to the international nature of thoroughbred breeding rather than a lack of demand in Kentucky.  Given the exchange rate between the dollar and the yen, the purchase of Summer Bird and the relocation of Street Sense is not shocking.  Similarly, with the decline of synthetic tracks in the US and the success of his progeny in Europe it is not shocking that Ashford elected to move Henry back to Europe. 

     In total these stallions were bred to 757 mares in 2012.  Assuming that the number of mares being bred stays constant, these 757 mares will be available to breed to the new stallions of 2013.  But, in an era of 200 plus books these mares alone will not be enough to fill the books of the new stallions.  Accordingly, it appears that these new stallions will cannibalize the books of existing stallions.  Without an addition of mares, it would appear that competition will be stiff for mares this spring.  I had worried that this fall would see an exodus of stallions from Kentucky to make room for the new; however, the exodus may occur next year if the new stallions reduce demand for existing stallions below the 40 mare threshold.       

Hope, Horses, and Divorce

       In the last post, I alluded to some personal issues that had kept me away from blogging this summer.  Most significantly, I have just finished moving into an apartment leaving behind my home of eight years, my wife of 11 years, and our three year old daughter.  The move was not my idea, but maybe it will turn out for the best – I don’t know.  The situation is no one’s fault, but divorce seems impossible to avoid at this point.

Sunday was moving day and before I left the house for the last time I chose to drive out to my friend’s farm to get some vegetables, see Golden Frontier, and see if that saying about the outside of a horse being good for the inside of a man was true.  George had said that Golden had recovered from his injury and was probably two weeks away from returning to the track.  I had swiped some peppermints from restaurants for him and was looking forward to spending some time with him before he returned to the track.

When I arrived, the paddock was empty.  Golden had returned to the track early to make room in the paddock for a newly weaned foal.  It would not be the first disappointment of the day and it wouldn't be the last.  Still I found hope there.  I found hope in the fact that Golden had healed with time and care.  I found hope in time and rest healing all wounds.  I found hope in the fact that Golden might be able to regain his form, and hope is a good thing.

While Golden was gone, there were still some residents of the farm who were more than happy to eat the mints earmarked for him. 

The newly weaned foal had been moved into a paddock with Hold the Salt who is sporting the fly mask in the above photo.  Salty is a retired, speedy son of Salt Lake who set several track records as sprinter/miler a few years ago.  (Despite both being sprinters, it is amazing to me how different Golden and Salty are built.  To give you some perspective, I have taken all photos on the blog standing at six feet two inches.  I look down at Salty and up at Golden.) 

At ten years of age, he seems to be enjoying his well-deserved retirement and has taken to looking after the weanling.  As second careers go, mentoring the next generation of race horses isn’t a bad one.  While F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in American lives, Salty appears to have found his second act.  And I figured if he can do it, then I can do it too.  And so, for about an hour I fed the horses some mints, pulled some green grass from the other side of the fence to hand feed them, and did not think about my apartment, the divorce, or anything else.  This was relief, and it reminded me that the horse industry is based on hope.  

You hope the mating you planned produces a healthy foal, that the foal goes on to sell well or shows talent when training, and you hope that your horse crosses the wire first.  As a fan, you watch the race hoping your bet will win or that you will be amazed at the courage and effort after the race.  You hope you see a race like Rachel Alexandra's win in the Kentucky Oaks where fans watching the simulcast at Keeneland applauded after the race ended. You hope to see a horse as talented as Lost in the Fog set a track record at Turf Paradise from out of nowhere.  The more we fight over suspensions, breakdowns, drug positives, and knock down drag out fights over Lasix, the further we get away from hope and we lose something important and essential.  So I continue to hope... 

Hiding Death in Plain Sight -- Going Behind the Screen and Pointing the Finger At Someone Else

          Everyone agrees that there should be fewer breakdowns and fatalities from racing and training.  To seek fewer breakdowns is to admit and acknowledge that there will always be some breakdowns – that some level of death will always occur.  Refusal to state this fact apparently precludes the collection and dissemination of information on breakdowns and fatalities during training and racing.  The failure of the powers that be to collect and publish this information led to the New York Times reviewing racing charts to generate a “guesstimate” at the number of horse racing fatalities.  This lack of information also allows people to opine that horses inbred to Mr. Prospector are doomed to breakdown.  The industry was basically silent as it lacked the information to respond other than to dismiss their analysis due to the inclusion of quarter horse races.

            A recent article summarizing a meeting of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission provides a good example of the “buck passing” and denial regarding race track fatalities.  Dr. Mary Scollay, KHRC equine medical director, reported to the Commission on the active steps taken to reduce fatalities at Churchill Downs from 8 in May to 2 in June.  The implication was that this drop was due to policies and procedures put into place after May; however, we have no way of actually proving that these procedures worked or if the change in the number of breakdowns was even statistically significant.  Without context the data is meaningless.    

            Even more interesting is that Dr. Scollay seemed to blame another “out of state” track for the May breakdowns stating that there was a "commonality to that population of horses in that they had participated in racing at a specific venue before coming to Churchill.”  Given the traditional movement of horses north as the weather improves, it seemed likely that this “specific venue” was Oaklawn Park.  However, the Doctor declined to identify the facility.  Given that a substantial portion of Churchill’s racing population likely comes from Oaklawn, I don’t know if it is fair to suggest that Oaklawn’s safety procedures are lacking.  Likewise, the list of fatalities was not disclosed although it may be requested through a public records request.   

            Intrigued the vagueness in this response, I did a little “New York Times” style analysis of the May charts from Churchill Downs.  The results show six likely fatalities.  I do not know if the other fatalities occurred during training or if that injury was not reflected in the chart.  None of these horses have raced or worked since the date indicated.  Interestingly enough three horses of the six had previously raced at Oaklawn while two had last raced at Keeneland.  Also of interest is that three of the six breakdowns occurred on the turf course despite fewer turf races being run than dirt races. 

     

Date	Horse Name	Last Race Location	Churchill Race	Comment
5/1/2012	Tutti Buona Gente	Fair Grounds	Mile and a Sixteenth on Turf Starter Allowance	Pulled Up, Vanned Off
5/3/2012	Auspicious Risk	Oaklawn	Six Furlongs on Dirt Claiming ($16K)	Eased, Lame
5/10/2012	RJ's Afleet	Oaklawn	Mile and a Sixteenth on Dirt Allowance	Off Slow, Vanned Off
5/11/2012	On Stirling Bridge	Tampa	Mile and a Sixteenth on Turf Allowance	Lost Footing, Walked Off
5/17/2012	Bulldog Legend	Keeneland	Mile on Dirt Maiden Claiming	Broke Down
5/18/2012	Woodbourne	Keeneland	Mile on Turf Allowance Optional Claimer ($50K)	Broke Down
5/27/2012	Whistlin Sam	Oaklawn	Six Furlongs on Dirt Maiden Claiming ($10K)	Pulled Up, Vanned Off

            Again, we are left with more questions than answers because the information is not being collected and distributed properly.  The Commission may not have intended it, but the summary makes it sound like the “other track” is responsible for the breakdowns and not Churchill Downs or the weather or anything else.  This suggestion is irresponsible and does nothing to reduce the number of fatalities going forward.  Off the top of my head, here are some questions that deserve answers regarding breakdowns

·         Do horses entered in claiming races break down more frequently than other horses? 

·         Do horses break down more frequently in route races or sprints? 

·         Where do horses tend to break down in a race – at the beginning when accelerating or in the stretch when tiring? 

·         Do horses break down more frequently in sloppy going?

·         Does racing at two have any connection to break downs?

            So let us be clear about the consequences of horse racing – it will involve some level of death to both horse and rider.  Our goal should be to reduce this level to the lowest level possible for all involved.  To do this we need good data that is openly shared no matter how bad or negative the story might be.  The Jockey Club should support the public disclosure of all race track fatalities the same way vet’s lists and trainer infractions are publicized.  Putting up a screen to hide break downs does nothing to diminish the problem – it only hides it from plain sight.  We all know what is happening on the other side of the screen – horses –  lots of them –  are dying.          

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Winner's Circle

         A funny thing happened on Golden Frontier’s way to the winner’s circle in the Kelly’s Landing Stakes at Churchill Downs.  Namely, he didn’t win and there was no return trip to the winner’s circle.  He did not even hit the board despite going off as the 1:1 favorite.  His last race at Churchill at six and a half furlongs resulted in a 107 Beyer speed figure, so everyone was confident that he would win in the seven furlong Kelly’s Landing if he could run back to 90% of that performance.  A win or solid effort in this race, and Golden was likely headed to Saratoga.  In the paddock everything was looking great except for drawing the rail position.

           

            As you can see from the chart, Golden had the lead after a 45.42 half mile.  Compared to his previous race, this pace was fine.  Then at the top of the lane, he pricked his ears, floated off the rail, but did not kick away from the field.  Noble’s Promise rolled through the gap along the rail while other horses swallowed him up on the outside.  We all waited for Golden to respond, but he never kicked into that extra gear.  After some equine rollerderby down the stretch, Golden crossed the line in fifth beaten by about five lengths.  The second guessing began almost immediately – did the prior week’s speedy workout (58.3) soften him up[1], was it too hot, was it too far, or did breaking from the rail distract him into a bad race?  The conventional wisdom would say that he just “bounced” off his previous race and was just dull, but the speedy workout and his build contradicted that conclusion.

            After the card finished I made my way back to the barn and watched Golden sling his head side to side in his stall – still wound up from the race and unable to settle down.  The trainer said he did not see anything wrong with him following the race, and as I stood there, I realized that we were confronting the second great question in racing.  While Golden already answered the first great question by proving that he was a legitimate race horse despite a modest purchase price and pedigree, we now had to figure out what he needed to perform at a high level every time he raced.  In other words, what made Golden tick as a race horse? 

            I stood against the wall and tried to get inside that head that kept shaking side to side – was he getting sick, was something physically bothering him that had not flared up yet, as a big horse did he need more time to recover between races?  We had all the questions and Golden had all the answers.  Before I got into my car, I took this photo of Churchill from the barn.  There were no answers there either.

           

            Postscript:  Golden seemed to come out of the race ok and went back to his owner’s farm for some R & R.  While at the farm, a vet came to check him out and found a slight injury.  Because it had already started to heal on its own, the vet estimated that he probably raced with it and still managed to finish 5^th on natural ability and will.  He did not bounce – if anything he proved his toughness.  Sixty days of rest and he should be ready to go back into training.  So no Saratoga this year, but it has been an amazing couple of months and a very special feeling to be associated with a horse of such talent and ability.

---

[1] The horse was not supposed to work that fast, but he is such a large horse that covers so much ground that riders misjudge how fast they are really going. 

What is the Point of Churchill Downs' Point System?

  

Churchill Downs released a "point" system today to determine who will start in the Kentucky Derby.  The general result is a "tiered" set of races with increasing worth as you near the Derby.  To see how this system works I applied the point system to three prior Derbies 2008, 2010, and 2011.  I picked these years to see if Bluegrass Cat would still make the field in 2008 despite his poor form and because 2010 and 2011 were recent enough to limit the research.  The results are discussed below and indicate that while the "point system" looks dramatic, it does not appear to alter the field substantially.  The biggest impact of the point system is the omission of the Illinois Derby and fillies who have not earned points against males.  While heralded as progressive action, my fear is that this "point" system is marketing hype that may decrease the excitement of the Derby prep season without changing the composition of the field.  I plan a second post that will consider the implications going forward.

    At the outset, let me note that had the point system been in effect in these years that trainers could have selected different races for their horses as several folks on twitter pointed out.  However, if you assume that trainers generally run their horses where they can win or be competitive, then this argument should not substantially change the results.  The only instances where the point system may have forced trainers into different races appears to be Uncle Mo in 2011 choosing the "made up" Timely Writer over the Tampa Bay Derby, or when a rivalry develops between two horses on the Derby trail like Noble's Promise and Lookin at Lucky.  Here, the point system could force those two competitors apart at the cost of competitive racing.

2008 Kentucky Derby

Horses in Order of Graded Stakes Earnings (Derby Starters in Bold)	Total Points Under New System	Derby Field Under New Point System
Brother Derek	221	Brother Derek
Lawyer Ron	210	Lawyer Ron
Barbaro	110	Bob and John
Bob and John	162	Barbaro
Sinister Minister	100	Sinister Minister
Private Vow	30	AP Warrior
AP Warrior	77	Bluegrass Cat
Sweetnorthernsaint	10	Steppenwolfer
Sharp Humor	40	Point Determined
Bluegrass Cat	60	Deputy Glitters
Steppenwolfer	60	Sharp Humor
Keyed Entry	40	Keyed Entry
Showing Up	20	Jazil
Point Determined	60	Storm Treasure
Cause to Believe	10	Sacred Light
Deputy Glitters	54	Private Vow
Jazil	40	Flashy Bull
Storm Treasure	40	Seaside Retreat
Seaside Retreat	22	Red Raymond
Flashy Bull	25	Showing Up
Also Eligible		Also Eligible
Sunriver	20	Sunriver
Sacred Light	40	Strong Contender
Red Raymond	22	Sweetnorthernsaint
Malameeze	10	Cause to Believe
Strong Contender	20	Malameeze

            I selected 2008 for this experiment because I wanted to see if Bluegrass Cat would make the field as I remembered his two year old form tailing off at three until his second place finish in the Derby.  Under the point system and given the dominance of Brother Derek and Lawyer Ron in the prep races, Bluegrass Cat did not have to worry.  Brother Derek and Lawyer Ron would have earned more than 200 points apiece with Showing Up and Sunriver tying for the 20^th spot with 20 points apiece.  The 2008 Derby is interesting because the point system would have excluded Sweetnorthernsaint who made the field due to his victory in the Illinois Derby.  The exclusion of Sweetnorthernsaint is despite the fact that he was the post-time favorite in a Derby won by the dominating Barbaro.  Applying the point system to 2008 seems to suggest that a substantial number of horses that have little chance to win the Derby will still make it to the gate if two or three talented horses dominate the Derby preps.  This does not seem to be a significant change over the present system.    

2011 Kentucky Derby Field

Horses in Order of Graded Stakes Earnings (Derby Starters in Bold)	Total Points Under New System	Derby Field Under New Point System
Uncle Mo (Entered Did Not Start)	40	Archarcharch
Dialed In	110	Dialed In
Archarcharch	115	Pants on Fire
Comma to the Top	57	Midnight Interlude
Pants on Fire	104	Brilliant Speed
Midnight Interlude	100	Nehro
Soldat	50	Mucho Macho Man
Brilliant Speed	100	Twinspired
Master of Hounds	40	Comma to the Top
Nehro	80	Watch Me Go
Twice the Appeal	50	Soldat
Mucho Macho Man	75	Twice the Appeal
Decisive Moment	24	Animal Kingdom
Animal Kingdom	50	Stay Thirsty
Stay Thirsty	50	Uncle Mo
Santiva	24	Master of Hounds
Watch Me Go	52	Shackleford
Shackleford	40	Norman Asbjornson
Twinspired	60	Decisive Moment
Derby Kitten	20	Santiva
Also Eligible		Also Eligible
Sway Away	10	Derby Kitten
Machen	5	Mr. Commons
Brethern	10	Dance City
Flashpoint	10	Sway Away
Mr. Commons	20	Brethern
Dance City	20	Flashpoint
Norman Asbjornson	30	Machen

    In 2011, the points system would have little impact.  Unlike 2008, the point totals for 2011 are more spread out with 115 being the highest point total and a three way tie for 20^th place with twenty points.  The only change is that Norman Asbjornson's 4th place finish in the Wood propels him to a spot in the starting gate knocking out Derby Kitten.  As a positive, race fans would get to hear the media struggle to pronounce Norman Asbjornson for the week prior to the Derby.  Unfortunately, the point system would not have forced Uncle Mo into a more aggressive 3 year old campaign as he still easily makes the field with a 3rd or even 4th in the Wood or any other final prep race. 

2010 Kentucky Derby

Horses in Order of Graded Stakes Earnings (Derby Starters in Bold)	Total Points Under New System	Rank Under New System
Lookin at Lucky	94	Sidney's Candy
Noble's Promise	36	Mission Impazible
Sidney's Candy	150	Line of David
Line of David	100	Ice Box
Mission Impazible	101	Stately Victor
Ice Box	100	Lookin at Lucky
Stately Victor	100	Awesome Act
Conveyance	40	Discreetly Mine
American Lion	7	Jackson Bend
Dublin	34	Super Saver
Super Saver	61	Setsuko
Devil May Care	0	Dean's Kitten
Discreetly Mine	64	Pleasant Prince
Dean's Kitten	50	Conveyance
Awesome Act	70	Paddy O'Prado
Paddy O'Prado	40	A Little Warm
Homeboykris	10	Caracortado
Jackson Bend	62	Noble's Promise
Backtalk	0	Dublin
Make Music for Me	2	Drosselmeyer
Also Eligible		Also Eligible
Pleasant Prince	45	Yawanna Twist
A Little Warm	40	First Dude
Setsuko	60	Homeboykris
Caracortado	40	American Lion
Yawanna Twist	20	Make Music for Me
Eightyfiveinafifty	0	Devil May Care
First Dude	20	Backtalk
Drosselmeyer	25	Eightyfiveinafifty

In 2010, implementation of the point system results in one-fourth of the field changing over as Homeboykris, American Lion, Make Music for Me, Devil May Care, and Backtalk are excluded from the field.  As a result, Setsuko, Pleasant Prince, A Little Warm, Caracortado, and Drosselmeyer all make the field.  In 2010, the point totals range from 150 for Sydney’s Candy to 25 points for Drosselmeyer in 20^th place. The exclusion of the Illinois Derby bars American Lion and Backtalk from the field while refusing to award any credit for “fillies only” races excludes Devil May Care.  Also, despite only earning 2 points under the new system, Make Music For Me did make the field and finished 4^th when they actually ran the race.  In defense of the point system, the pedigrees and subsequent race performance of horses like Drosselmeyer, Setsuko, and A Little Warm arguably “fit” the Derby better than most of those horses that were excluded; however, the fate of Noble’s Promise shows a serious flaw in the point system.

  Despite his numerous races and significant earnings, the point total of Noble’s Promise suggests that the system can be distorted by “wins” which obscures the central question of who the best 20 horses are.  Despite being second on the graded stakes earnings list, Noble’s Promise is eighteenth on the point system essentially because he ran in tough races and lost to Lookin’ at Lucky three times.  Noble’s Promise was second to Lookin at Lucky in two races (Cashcall Futurity and Rebel Stakes) and ran third to Lucky and Vale of York in the Breeders Cup Juvenile; however, his off the board finish in the Arkansas Derby would have made for some nervous nights for his connections under the point system.  If the system is modified to give some credit to the Illinois Derby (as I think it will be), then Noble’s Promise would likely have been excluded or been the last horse in.  Unfortunately for racing fans, the point system rewards wins and not rigorous campaigns that allow fans and bettors to know a horse.  For trainers like Todd Pletcher keeping Derby prospects separate until the last minute will become even more essential, and the first Saturday in May will become more of a guessing game than it already is. 

            It is hard to draw conclusions from only three years of retroactive application, but it appears that between 20 to 25 points will be the minimum to make the field in most years.  Unfortunately, a horse only needs to finish in the money in two lower tier races or hit the board in one of the Grade 1 preps to achieve this goal.  The fact that a talented, game horse like Noble’s Promise might be excluded from the Derby field is equally troubling.  The systems emphasis on “winning” without regard for who you raced seems to reward trainers who protect their horses from competition until absolutely necessary.  Stakes races with small field or hopelessly outmatched runners are bad for the sport.  This situation is unlikely to improve as horses race less and foal crops are smaller. 

Similarly, the exclusion of the Illinois Derby while treating the UAE Derby as the equivalent of the Arkansas Derby lacks justification and common sense.  While no one waits to pick their Derby horse until after they run the Illinois Derby, this exclusion seems more a result of corporate strategy or snobbery than anything else.  If you are only looking at performance in the Kentucky Derby, then horses exiting the Illinois Derby along with their counterparts from the Louisiana Derby and Bluegrass Stakes rarely appear among the top three finishers of the Kentucky Derby. 

As I hope to discuss in the next post, this “point” system smacks more of marketing and television than any real effort to improve the field quality.  It is overly complex and picks and chooses “favorite” races to reward with higher points.  A simpler and fairer system might have been to (i) exclude all graded earnings from races at less than a mile, (ii) exclude graded earnings from turf races, and (iii) discount graded earnings from the two-year old campaign by half.