The new Derby qualification system

*This may have been true of the earnings system, too, but I think too much weight is being put on one or two races. An off race at the wrong time and one of the potential race favorites might not get in.

*Shifting from 2-year-old races to 3-year-old races, and from sprints to routes, is certainly the right idea. At the same time, nothing magical happens in late February that suddenly means we are getting the true read on the horses then.

*To a certain extent, by weighting the points so much towards the later races, those races will become more difficult to win and much better barometers of which horses are deserving to be in the Derby than the earlier races. The question is if a horse has the right look about him, and runs a 104 Beyer winning an early Derby prep that isn't rich with points, should that horse be given at least almost as much credit as the horse who wins the Wood Memorial, Arkansas Derby, etc.? I guess how you answer that question has a lot to do with how you weigh speed and class in general.

*Churchill wants to be fair and is loathe to introduce any subjective element into the process. The truth is that a subjective element would improve the quality of the selections. To devise a system so refined that it can do the work better than holistic, non self-conscious evaluation is extremely difficult.

No one would ever target a potential Derby winner based on how many points he had under this system. Why, then, should it determine who gets to run in the race? Why should we have any faith in it? I think the argument has to be that the system is effective at telling whether horses are in the top 20 in the country, but not at telling who is going to win, and that somehow a "blink" reading of Derby starters may be more effective than the mechanical way at pinpointing the winner, but not at identifying the right starters. It seems to me the rating effectiveness of an approach would be the same at both tasks.

*My subjective component would just be that three starters should be left up to a committee, with 17 determined by the points. A failsafe is needed.

*Now that they are no longer the basis for Derby inclusion, and hence for the quality of the fields, inevitably we will see the purses of Derby preps drop over time, or at least relative to other graded stakes. I don't know if this is a good or a bad change, but I think it is significant and should be considered. Big Derby prep purses were an incentive to buy horses, both at yearling and 2-year-old sales, and privately in the winter before the Derby. There was more than enough money to go around for the good 3-year-old routers, and owners could take advantage.

 I don't know if the purses for the Derby preps were negatively affecting the finances for tracks; some Derby preps were probably sponsored. If tracks can save money and stay in business, or raise purses a bit all around instead of splurging all of the money on the Derby preps, these lower purses could be good, a halt to the Derby prep purse madness.

But I think what might happen is Derby prep purses could become notably low. These races that have the high point totals built in them almost have automatic prestige working for them, the way the Derby itself used to! A normal, everyday graded stake has its purse as a main calling card to draw the best horses possible. Normal, everyday graded stakes do not come with points counting towards another race.

The points take precedence over the purse for the Derby preps. So a Wood Memorial or some other race could have its purse reduced to $150,000 and still get big horses. The main thing stopping NYRA from dropping the purse like that is the purse has to be $250,000 for the race to be grade I. But do grades even mean much, in the context of the new points?

*Marketing wise, I think this system will be a tremendous success, and I anticipate extreme interest in Derby Prep season and Derby Championship season. The uniformity is here that wasn't with graded stakes earnings to get people to follow.

*You might not know if from this post, but overall there is more positive than negative to the change, I think.

Tough Game: what would $300,000 have been in New York-bred competition?

Tough Game (born 1999) earned just over $300,000 in 27 starts. He was an allowance horse and a claimer; never got any black type. What is odd is that he was a New York-bred who ran in California, and indeed, never ran in New York. He ran once at Churchill Downs, of all things (he was trained by Baffert then). Doesn't this seem like a horse who would have benefited immenseley from New York-bred competiton? Doesn't it seem like that might have gotten him over the hump? I have to think you can't find many horses like him, based in America, whose connections didn't even scratch the New York-bred itch once.

By Mr. Greeley, he was bred to 10 mares last year, and has apparently had progeny race. His final start came as an 8-year-old for $16,000 claiming.

Golden Hare: if not Rapid Redux, 90% as colorful

In the debut study I'm compiling, I encountered Golden Hare, who was absolutely a poor man's Rapid Redux. Consider this career:he started with four wins in maidens and allowances from nine starts at 3 for Richard Mandella before trying the Malibu, where he ran 4th.

A more motley crew probably hasn't been assembled for the Malibu in my lifetime, particularly among the first three finishers: Debonair Joe, Total Limit, and American System. (This was 2002, by the way.) Behind Golden Hare, it looks a little better: there were Castle Gandolfo, Mayakovsky, and Sunday Break. My Cousin Matt was the second favorite: he certainly had his moments, but had also been in for a claiming tag on September 25.

Including the Malibu, Golden Hare went on a 21-race losing streak, not to be broken until he ran in a starter late in the year as a 7-year-old. The next 21 races were much happier than that losing streak, and formed a streak of their own, as they were all starter races. Golden Hare won 18 of them, and ran second the other three times. This occurred in a period of less than 14 months. He was apparently always a horse that could take a lot of racing, going back to his 3-year-old year.

Golden Hare's record at the end of his career did not represent either of the extremes of consistently winning or consistently losing that he had experienced before: after essentially leaving starter competition, he showed 16 starts, six wins, two seconds, and four thirds, before retiring at age 10. Still very good.

So Golden Hare's record had real shape to it. Four for nine to begin; then the lean times, 21 straight losses; then wins in 20 of 23 starts; then a more calm finish of 5 wins in 15 starts. It was very much like a play: you can see the different acts (the final act just spent time wrapping things up, however, which might be melodramatic and have the audience restless. But I like the aspect of taking a while to get into the story, then having the desolation, then the triumph.)

I also think Golden Hare, and starter races in particular, show that the idea of winning and losing in horses being about anything more than running at the right class level is nonsense. He went from a horse who couldn't find the winner's circle to one who couldn't be kept out.

Pedigreequery has an interesting note on Golden Hare, that he was "maybe 900 pounds."

Via Villaggio: the secret filly

I noticed something odd in this filly's past performances for the Senorita (which was marred by the fatal breakdown of winner Bobina). She ran against the boys in four straight maiden special weights to end her year at 2. These were routes at Golden Gate, two on synthetic, and two on turf. The best guess is that these races were not being run for fillies, and despite a couple of placings previously sprinting on the dirt at Santa Rosa, Jerry Hollendorfer liked Via Villaggio's chances better against the boys at a distance than against the girls sprinting. She was eventually good enough to win the maiden special weight intended for males. The three straight Horse of the Year fillies and mares, as well as Rags to Riches in 2007, facilitate a cavalier attitude about the difference in ability between the sexes, but I know of no work suggesting there is not a healthy difference on the average. So one wonders if the Golden Gate male maiden special weights were really the best solution to this problem, particularly because Via Villaggio was not running for more money for going against the males. Could she have been sent against winners instead? Maybe in a stake at Golden Gate against fillies, if such a race existed? (and it probably didn't) What about running in Southern California against her own sex?

I checked Via Villaggio's maiden victory to see if the race had a few fillies in it, to see if sex integration was flourishing at Golden Gate through the stinginess and discipline of the racing secretary. There was one other filly in Via Villaggio's maiden win, but that was another Jerry Hollendorfer trainee, Light Up the Sky.

Via Villaggio finished 5th on Saturday, by the way. She was only beaten 3 1/2 lengths, but it was only a seven-horse field, and does not appear to have been a strong race.

Emcee at Belmont on 5/5: the strongest 1-2 shot you'll ever see

I think if my life savings depended on the outcome of a horse race, I would have given the 6th at Belmont on Saturday a long look. The race was a nw2x/50k allowance featuring Emcee. Anyone following this horse has to have developed high respect for his talents. He'd run four times previously and always very, very well, including a 3rd in the Tom Fool and a 4th in the Carter. I don't know how those two races would stack up to Breeders' Cup Sprints, Beyer-wise, but I would rate them faster than some Breeders' Cup Sprints. Moreover, Emcee broke horribly in the Carter, was rushed up, and still gave a decent showing. His two races before being thrown to the wolves were open-length wins, including at Gulfstream in 1:20 4/5 when the track didn't even appear to be fast.

This is all leading to the fact that, while no one was going to get rich betting Emcee, his win price of $3.00 (1-2) suggested that the winner of the race was regarded as somewhat in doubt beforehand. I suppose odds could be looked upon a little bit like reasonable doubt court cases: there may have been doubt that Emcee would win, but there wasn't reasonable doubt. One-to-two odds are not "floor" odds. There may not really be a difference between 1-5 shots and 1-9 shots, but 1-2 odds are giving others in the race a chance and are not the floor.

Could a field even be put together for this condition (nw2x, 7f) where Emcee would not be a deserving favorite? Even keeping in mind that 3-year-olds and fillies and mares were eligible for the race, I'm not sure that it could. I don't think there are many sprinters in the land better than Emcee, and those that are have won three races.

 I will grant you that a field could be put together where he wouldn't be a deserving 1-2 favorite, but this race at Belmont did not have a field at all on that level. The two main contenders were rated Manteca (4-1) and Simba's Story (5-1). The public goofed on these two, too; Simba's Story is a more attractive horse at this point in his career, and would go on to be 2nd to Emcee (who won by 4 1/2 lengths). But Simba's Story is far from spectacular. While never worse than 4th, he'd only run in one stake in nine starts, and his best Beyer had been 93. Manteca is an old favorite of mine, but was running in an unfamiliar sprint. He could be claimed in the race for $50,000, and believe me, no one is getting Emcee for that. Manteca is 7 years old, and he's only run more than four times in a year once, so he's not at the height of his powers.

I just wonder what people who bet on horses other than Emcee were thinking? Probably something semi-coherent, although exactly what eludes me. I mean, John Velazquez did choose to ride Went the Day Well and the other races at Churchill on Derby day instead of riding Emcee, so that's a strike against him.

 Emcee had broken poorly in one of his races besides the Carter. Could people really have had it in their heads, "I'm going to take a shot against Emcee because he might get left at the gate?" That would be quite a cool, detached way to think, and not consistent with the thought processes of most bettors I've listened to.

Awesome Overture beats River Rush in Woodbine maiden; Queen's Plate implications?

The first-out winner of Sunday's race, Awesome Overture, is an obvious candidate, but I think I like River Rush, who finished full of run to be 2nd, even better. I even liked this horse after his first race; he finished 8th by 8 1/2 at Gulfstream, but had what I noted was the "absolute trip from hell." (A bit odd to be quoting my notes; what am I going to do, accuse myself of plagiarism?) He's by Orientate, and that doesn't make you think a mile and a quarter, but his broodmare sire is Lemon Drop Kid; the sire of his 2nd dam, El Gran Senor. His 3rd dam is Willamae, dam of Travers' winner, Will's Way, and Ashland winner, Willa on the Move.

Awesome Overture is by Awesome Again out of the Pulpit mare, Fifth Overture, who won the 2005 grade III Seaway at Woodbine.

Sequoia Warrior's turnaround

He ran Beyers of 53, 70, 37, and 66 for Dale Romans to begin his career. Off for 12 1/2 months, and now 4, he returned with a 96 for Baffert when 2nd by 1 on April 12. He broke his maiden by 4 1/2 lengths yesterday, and ran another good time.