Kentucky Derby thoughts & rant
I am not a huge horse racing guy. I pay minor attention to the triple crown and breeders cup. I'm a tourist of the "sport of kings". But why on earth are there 20 horse every year in the Kentucky Derby? There is not another horse race in the country that has more than 12, to my knowledge. That's every track every day....limits it to 12. But in the biggest race of the year, they allow 20.
I mean what a huge disaster waiting to happen. Traffic issue. Huge disadvantage for those outside horse. After the initial 12 gate, there is about an 8 foot gap, to the second gate (connecting gear) and then another 8 gates. Give me a break...how can there not be traffic. It is no surprise that favorites (supposedly the best horse) don't traditionally do well in this race, which goes to the fact that we haven't had a triple crown is 38 years.
A second issue that pisses me off just a bit is what I call "the Belmont scenario". The 3rd leg of the triple crown, the Belmont, being an unusually long distance, always results in a few 'distance specialist' holding out, 'laying in wait' for any horse that has managed to win the first two races. Talk about insurmountable odds. My solution: there should be a rule that any horse entered into the Belmont, must have run in either the Derby or the Preakness. None of this resting and laying and waiting, distance specialist.
Quote: kewljI had a small wager on American P. today, so I am not crying over spilled milk...just crying. AP was clearly the best horse today. If he didn't win it was going to be because of traffic issue and the 18 post position enhanced that possibility. That is the crust of my 'rant'.
I am not a huge horse racing guy. I pay minor attention to the triple crown and breeders cup. I'm a tourist of the "sport of kings". But why on earth are there 20 horse every year in the Kentucky Derby? There is not another horse race in the country that has more than 12, to my knowledge. That's every track every day....limits it to 12. But in the biggest race of the year, they allow 20.
I mean what a huge disaster waiting to happen. Traffic issue. Huge disadvantage for those outside horse. After the initial 12 gate, there is about an 8 foot gap, to the second gate (connecting gear) and then another 8 gates. Give me a break...how can there not be traffic. It is no surprise that favorites (supposedly the best horse) don't traditionally do well in this race, which goes to the fact that we haven't had a triple crown is 38 years.
A second issue that pisses me off just a bit is what I call "the Belmont scenario". The 3rd leg of the triple crown, the Belmont, being an unusually long distance, always results in a few 'distance specialist' holding out, 'laying in wait' for any horse that has managed to win the first two races. Talk about insurmountable odds. My solution: there should be a rule that any horse entered into the Belmont, must have run in either the Derby or the Preakness. None of this resting and laying and waiting, distance specialist.
Congratulations on your AP win today. This post reads like you have a rather large 2015 Triple Crown winner wager. :)
I am going to get on my "high horse" for a minute:
Not this one:
But this one:
I respectfully disagree with most of your post, but understand your perspective. AP actually won from the 16th gate position today. This had only been done once before (Animal Kingdom 2011). Four of the last five Derby winners have now come from the auxiliary gate (AP,Orb,I'll Have Another,Animal Kingdom). This proves horses can overcome the gate and big field obstacles. Size of the field is a non-issue for me, but I am not completely against a smaller field size (15-16 in a single gate) because 4-5 runners probably should not be entered anyway. Horses have to deal with traffic, bumping, and poor posts even in smaller fields. A 12 horse field would not eliminate these issues. Disasters (to jockeys and horses) can happen in all races, all around the world, at any time.
"The Belmont scenario" leading to losing Triple Crown eligible runners really has more to do with a couple of factors. One is the timing of the races: 3 races in 5 weeks. It is what it is. The second is the distance the Belmont is contested at (1.5miles). Some horses just can not get the distance. Excluding runners is not the answer for a number of reasons (the biggest being the potential for very small Belmont Stakes fields).
One must remember there is not a requirement for AP to ever run again (even if sound and healthy). He could be turned out and begin stud duties if his handlers wanted to.
In summary, just because it is difficult to accomplish, does not mean the task is impossible. A number of recent runners have come very close. If it was easier, it would not be a big deal. It is just going to take a really special horse. AP could certainly be the one....
I will now dismount my "high horse".
