It is only 9 or 10 weeks away from the derby, so it is not too soon to start talking/thinking about it. I have two general topics that I would love to hear opinions on, the first one is about number of preps before the derby. This year more than ever, this is an issue in handicapping. The top five derby prospects on the Derby Watch on DRF are all going to have two preps instead of the traditional 3. I think there are some conflicting stats that are difficult to explain. Here they are:
1. Many handicappers I know believe that a horses \"3rd race off the layoff\" is a great betting angle and often the race where a horse shows his best race. This would seem to favor two preps, not three.
2. I believe the stat is that only once in the last 50/60 years has a horse with less than 3 preps won the Derby. To me this is a significant sample. No, it isn\'t as statistically significant as having 1000\'s of races to look at, but it is as large a sample as you can get with a \"once a year\" race and I think too strong a trend to ignore.
I am guessing based on JB\'s comments I have seen in the past that he views the 2 preps/3 preps question to be irrelevant and in fact I remember him saying in last year\'s derby seminar that he applauded the connections of Friend\'s Lake for entering the derby off the layoff, as a fresh horse. But this angle also has almost never worked. I think that it is possible/likely that many strong handicapping angles for \"normal\" races are \"out the window\" for the Derby. Things like having a fresh horse, having a horse running \"3rd off the layoff\", etc.
Any other views?
It was kinda hard to point at Friends Lake and say \"There ya go, SEE...two preps can\'t work\". That horse was a basket case. He beat Value Plus who is a sprinter type and The Cliff\'s Edge though third was probably best. I forget why his run was compromised, but he had to skip a beat even in late stretch. I lucked into that perfecta, but I don\'t think I had Friend\'s Lake as a factor at all in the Kentucky Derby and that was even being very leary of a wet track.
Who are the top five?
DeClan\'s Moon - He hasn\'t won beyond 8.5 marks yet has he?
Afleet Alex - Ditto on distance, His full brother Max looks a little light on distance and he had the lead and gave it up last.
Rockport Harbor - questionable on dam side. I have fastest two turn 2 yr number for him, but his main competition just significantly failed, he has battled both and injury and shoe difficulty and if he doesn\'t do it on two preps, who is gonna blame the two prep format?
Roman Ruler - If he fails are you gonna blame the preps?
Wilko - ran on a quarter crack and has missed a start supposedly on weather issues?
Two preps are plenty in the right circumstances, with the right horse, obviously there is something to be said for conditioning.
Here is a list of Horses that ran in the past 5 Derbies with only 2 Derby Preps:
2004: Tapit, Castledale,Read the Footnotes, Birdstone, Friends Lake
2003: Peace Rules, Outta Here, Indian Express
2002: Proud Citizen, Johanasburg, Essence of Dubai, Saarland, Castle Gandolfo
2001: Point Given, Express Tour
2000: China Visit, Anees
The most notable on this list was Point Given.
The last two winners with only 2 Derby Preps were Real Quiet, who had 9 races as a two year old, and Sunny\'s Halo who had 11 races as a two year old.
It appears to me that 3 preps is required to get the appropriate conditioning to pick up the added distance.
Good luck to those trainers that are trying to go the two race prep route.
NC Tony
Tony,
Real Quiet had 3 preps, not 2. One was in early January.
http://www.drf.com/tc/trail/2004/derbywinners.pdf
Real Quiet ran 3 times as a 3yo before the Derby, but Lion Heart ran only twice. So did Victory Gallop a couple of years earlier.
This is Mike Watchmaker\'s baby, same guy who thinks that ALL horses go forward second off a layoff-- that a minute and a half of excercise once in 3 weeks will make all the difference in the world to a horse which is excercising every day.
Here\'s the question, which I raised last week-- the idea of needing three preps (or any preps) is based on the idea that without them the horse is less fit. If that\'s true, the horses should perform better in their next start after the Derby. Well, go down your list (and take it back further),and see how many came back to run an improved race in the next 4 weeks.
I think you will find it\'s more a question of ability and soundness limitations that compromised those horses.
JB,
I am not sure which side of this argument I really believe, which is why I posted it here. But let me play devil\'s advocate with your posting.
1. The classic high profile example of the two prep failure was Point Given. He looked like a \"short\" horse in the Derby and then was super the rest of the year. Baffert helped make the point by specifically stating after the Derby that he made a mistake with the horse by having two preps. He said he wanted a fresh horse for the triple crown and didn\'t want him to be \"over the top\" by the Belmont.
2. You are saying that the \'result\' of not having enough preps would be having a better race AFTER the Derby. However, one could also argue that running a demanding 1 1/4 without a proper foundation would result in damaging the horse and also causing a regression in the next start. Lion Heart would be a good example here. Many others without proper foundation were never good horses again, like Friend\'s Lake, Read the Footnotes, Anees.
Out of that List I can only think of Point Given and Birdstone (more that 4 weeks) came back and ran better races next time out. Don\'t know how I forgot Lion Heart(thanks). I also missed the race on Real Quiet. I\'ve got my little data base fixed.
This is great site, and appreciate the dialogue.
I finally understood your point Jerry, to paraphrase:
\"If two preps are insufficient, the Derby itself becomes the \"Third Prep\" and its the race after the Derby that fitness will have been attained\"
The horses on that list that bear that out are Point Given and Birdstone.
However Peace Rules and Proud Citizen ran exceptionaly races, stayed the distance and could have been winners in certain circumstances.
Three of these horses Point Given, Birdstone and Peace Rules were very good horses. Proud Citizen was a mightabeen.
In the end it boils down to having the right horse, circumstances and getting some luck. The prep question will lose you money. All \"absolutes\" do.
JB,
I have no view on this issue. However, if you put a gun to my head and forced me to pick between 2 identical horses I\'d take the one with 3 preps. As long as we have this stat, we can\'t be sure it doesn\'t mean something. I don\'t see any stats that argue for 2 preps. Either 3 preps is better or it doesn\'t matter. So I would go with 3 preps if I was the owner/trainer.
I think there have been some studies on route races that suggested that without a certain amount of preparation horses WILL go backwards off the layoff in their routes. If I recall, 1 sprint to a route off a layoff wasn\'t nearly as good as 2 sprints as a prep for routing.
One other way to look at the conditioning was that the last three Derby winners ran an even better Preakness next time out with the added conditioning. The Preakness was the peak of their form cycles and the beginning of the downcycle for all three.
Soundness issues etc.
Jimbo-- First of all, one of the key points to keep in mind is that a bettor\'s interests and a trainer/owner\'s are two different things. As bettors we are only concerned with betting them on the days they show up, as someone who works the other side of the street I have to be concerned about the long run. And VG is one of very few horses of the last 10 years to run in all 3 TC races and go on to have any real success at 4.
We will never know why Point Given didn\'t fire on Derby day (and Baffert probably won\'t either), but since he ran much better not just after that but before it as well, I don\'t think fitness had anything to do with it. Who knows.
I agree that none of the others were ever good again. I just disagree as to why-- in some cases it was because of soundness issues, and it was pretty clear that some of those were handled the way they were because of them. I don\'t believe \"lack of seasoning\" made them more vulnerable to injury-- as John Forbes once said to me, the sounder they go into a race, the sounder they come out.
Yeah Tony...i think theres something to be said for the sixth race aggregating. Though, I still think the pace beat Smarty. He had a good race in him. Additionally, if Empire Faker and Ten Most Wanted have to run a Preakness and not ambush, I\'m not altogether sure Funny doesn\'t win that Belmont in mediocre time. He was only beaten five lengths. War Emblem was a gate horse, that didn\'t get out of the gate. Its hard to say cuz he never had a chance. I mean if Commendable was capable of essentially wiring, War Emblem figured capable in the right circumstances.
Its a tough series to sweep, but the horse that does it may come to the Derby with two preps. Doug O\'Neil is very high on the Moon.
CtC
CtC,
I don\'t think the pace beat Smarty, I think the distance finally caught up with him, combined with circumstances.. The early fractions were moderate to slow, although the middle fractions were amongst the fastest in recent Belmonts. Birdstone got a much better ride than Smarty did, making only the one move. When I say \"circumstances\", I refer to the early moves by Rock Hard Ten and Eddington, kind of forcing the hand of Stewart Elliott.
Doug O\'Neill is high on Declan\'s Moon? He isn\'t the trainer, so that is interesting.
CH,
I am in agreement with you on this. I don\'t have a strong view, but the fact is 57 years with one winner coming in with less than 3 preps. The results are the results. Explaining them is tough, but the fact is 2 or less preps have not been successful.
JB,
I understand your point on soundness after the Triple Crown trail. I think I would include Silver Charm in that group though, as well as Skip Away. They were both very good after the TC trail. Real Quiet also had a nice 4 year old season, beating Free House in the G1 - Pimlico Special. Free House is another who was good after his 3 year old season.
A New York trainer down in Florida had occasion to talk to Nick Zito about Sun King who was about 90% ready for his first start, according to Zito.The colt\'s not even\"tucked up\" yet, according to a good trainer who watched him parade.
I suspect he received the top number for any 3yr so far.Got a fig yet,JB? Beyer has 104.
very impressive run.
he\'s improved.
jimbo66 wrote:
> Doug O\'Neill is high on Declan\'s Moon? He isn\'t the trainer,
> so that is interesting.
In that case, I take back what Doug O\'Neil said about him.
CtC
I don\'t claim to have the answer on the 3-prep vs. 2-prep question. I think it is a legitimate concern but I don\'t think there is very much useful data to answer the question.
One thing is certain and that is that trainers of Derby contenders today are racing them much less often than in the past (for various reasons).
It was not that long ago that top Derby horses regularly made their final preps in the Derby Trial (held a week or less before the Derby) or the Blue Grass (Alysheba prepped in the Blue Grass when it was held only 10 days before the Derby). Several other major preps (e.g., Wood and Aks Derby) were only 2 weeks prior to the Derby not that long ago.
So to look back and say that very few horses have won the Derby off only 2 preps is pretty meaningless because the ONLY reason a horse would have come into the Derby with less than 3 preps in the past was because of physical problems that kept them from running more often as opposed to by trainer design (there may be a few exceptions but only a few).
This is even true this year and in recent years. Injuries are the main reason for the abbreviated schedules. Even the one recent oft-cited \"poster-child\" for the foolishness of 2 preps (Point Given) probably had his limited pre-derby campaign dictated more by well-documented chronic foot problems than trainer intent (despite what Baffert said post TC).
I am still on the fence with this one until we have more data. Maybe 3 preps is better than 2 but I would not \"bet\" on it.
Chris
P.S. To illustrate how any single anecdotal example is questionable, let us take a closer look at Real Quiet who was mentioned in some previous posts. He did have 3 Derby preps as a 3yo \"sort of.\" The first of the three was on Jan 18th (less than 3 weeks into the 3yo season) when he ran an \"18\" in the slop at GG and finished 8th by 22 lengths in what was by far the worst performance of his career. It is hard for me to believe that that performance was the key to conditioning him to win the Derby...
The \"Rules\" over the last couple of years have become the exceptions.
Hence there really is no longer an established method for bringing a horse up to the Derby, or a gelding rule, NY Bred rule, Pa Bred rule or Fool Qualifiers.
Wasn\'t that long ago that The Hollywood Futurity was considered a kiss a death. If Declans Moon doesn\'t win the Derby it will not be because of that. Nick Zito is probably more comfortable giving his horses a certain number of Preps because it fits with how he trains his horse everyday. When was the last time you saw a Shug horse work a bullet or a Baffert horse who didn\'t.
Find yourself a Derby Day horse who has good tactical speed, a solid price and is \"fast\" going in. War Emblem, Funny Cide and Smarty Jones seem to come to mind.
Perhaps there are a new set of Rules. Hmmmmmmm
Fellow players, it\'s not the preps at 3, but being a grade 1 winner at 2!!!!!!!!
Spa,
Funny Cide won NY State Stakes at 2. Smarty won non Graded at 2. Charismatic won a Mdn Claimer at 2, War Emblem a MSW etc. Historically G1 at 2 made sense but not lately. I still say conditioning at 3 makes sense to handle the extra distance they\'ve never covered. Until it\'s proven otherwise, I\'ll side with history and conditioning at this point.I think this one particular race with the added distance requires more conditioning. However, I\'ll keep an open mind if a really special one pops up in the next 6 -10 weeks.
Yes trainers are adapting and changing training methods and we should adapt too. Someone will eventually prove it can be done a new and different. (Hopefully without enhancements, additives, steroids et al).
NC Tony
You must not remember when the Derby was fixed with an aspirin and you give too much credit to these cab drivers turned trainers, no offense to cab drivers. My point is foundation at 2. The sheets prove my point. A young horse running fast, don\'t last. Bob Baffert is Wayne Lucas light. Wayne says, Bob is on a lifetime scholarship. It\'s all history,baby.
Dude\'s, It\'s just a horse-race. I think everyone over-does it with the Derby. It\'s typically won by a fast horse, who gets a good trip, and comes into the race with good recent form.
A horse like Thunder Gulch would be a recent exception, he ran a dreadful race in the Blue Grass, but his numbers on the go-back suggested that he was a fast enough horse to compete in the Derby.
I always felt Thunder Gulch hated Keeneland anyway. As a sire, there have been numerous offspring of Thunder Gulch who have run poorly at KEE and come back to run dazzling at Churchill a few weeks later. Spain (a daughter of TG) ran a luckluster race at KEE, than won the Breeders Cup Distaff at 50-to-1 odds a few weeks later at Churchill. Invisible Ink (a son of TG) ran a very mediocre race in the Blue Grass at KEE, than three weeks later he ran 2nd in the Kentucky Derby at something like 50-to-1 odds.
>2. However, one could also argue that running a demanding 1 1/4 without a proper foundation would result in damaging the horse and also causing a regression in the next start.<
That was the point I was making also. It is possible.
I once saw a study that indicated that if you gave a horse 1 sprint prep off a layoff for a route the horse would actually go backwards. If you gave it 2 sprint preps you were much better off.
Personlly, I don\'t have an opinion on this because I\'ve never studied the details of all the horses that failed. I doubt the sample is big enough anyway and I believe the individual trainer is probably a factor.
However, when presented with a stat that \"appears\" to suggest that 3 preps is better than 2 along with other evidence I have seen that suggested that horses as a group tended to peak in the 3rd/4th starts off a layoff, I can\'t imagine that 2 preps is better than 3.
So it seems obvious to me that if I have 2 horses that I think have a 20% chance of winning based on their form and they are both 6-1, I\'d rather have the one with 3 preps. Even if the stat is meaningless I am not giving anything up. If the stat is meaningful, I am obviously better off. I believe this is the proper way of thinking about it until the sample is large enough to draw concrete conclusions.
Post Edited (03-02-05 09:22)
Real Quiet was beaten by THREE different garbage cans in New Mexico. As a former horseracing TV and radio host on that circuit I can tell you that there are only two feasible suggestions as to his form reversal after the trip to New Mexico.
The first has to be looked at in the context of larceny, since that is the big topic these days. Real Quiet was uncoupled with post time favorite Indian Charlie. Both were trained by Baffert. RQ was 8-1. With the KY medication rules \"different\" in that state, larceny (drugged up Real Quiet?) is not far fetched. (Zito\'s success in KY is another example as he is a 10% er at best everywhere else).
The second feasible suggestion is the difference in altitude causing a lackluster performance. Rule # 1 when handicapping a shipper from anywhere to Albuquerque, Santa Fe or El Paso is TOSS HIM, as the change in altitude (which translates into thinner air) often causes a horse to have difficulty breathing. Below is a small sample of altitudes at various race tracks:
Santa Anita - 256 feet above sea level
Del Mar - 476 feet...
Pimlico - 196 feet..
Belmont Park- 131 feet...
Churchill Downs - 477 feet..
Sunland Park - 3,762 feet...
Downs at Albuquerque - 5,326 feet
Real Quiet has not been a REAL Star in the breeding shed. Below is his record as stallion:
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/isd/stallion.aspx?stallion=realquiet
Was Real Quiet juiced up for the triple crown, or did he get just beat by the altitude in New Mexico? We may never know.
TGJB
>And VG is one of very few horses of the last 10 years to run in all 3 TC races and go on to have any real success at 4.<
I think rate of development has something to do with this. Early bloomers would tend to do better in the Derby than late bloomers because it\'s so early in the year. The typical Derby winner is not fast enough to beat the best older horses. Not running well at 4 could be a matter of their peak early bloomer form at 3 not being good enough to do well against the typical faster 4 year old. I think we see a lot of that when horses go from 2 to 3 also.
Some horses have been retired for economic reasons.
However, there\'s little doubt that the Derby preparation and the triple crown are grueling. It\'s certainly no shock when some of those horses wind up with physical problems later in the year.
MO,
If Real Quiet went straight from New Mexico to Kentucky, maybe your argument makes sense. However, Real Quiet did not \"suddenly and magically\" blossom in the Derby. He ran two good races in California, including a very very good one in the Santa Anita Derby where he was coming hard at the end and getting to a perfect trip winner in Indian Charlie. That is why he was 8-1 and not 800-1, which he would have been if he came straight from New Mexico.
As for failure in the breeding shed pointing to \"cheating\" on the race course, that is not a fair or accurate statement. Many great horses have not been great sires.
Having been to Del Mar and having seen the ocean from the grandstand, I find it very hard to believe the the racing strip is 47 stories higher than sea level.
Just to clarify - I should have said San Diego, not Del Mar is 476 feet above sea level. But you get the point.
As for Real Quiet - my point about altitude is that maybe his races in NM were bad as a result of the change in altitude coming to NM from CA. His triple crown (and subsequent races) could easily have been juiced up performances. He did not figure on dosage and with all the light shining on drug use now, who\'s to say that RQ didn\'t get vet help while Baffert and friends cashed big tickets on the \"weaker\" half of the entry?
California shippers just ran 1-2-3 in the Borderland Derby at Sunland Park.
As far as RQ is concerned, the other possibility is plain old development, and some of us liked the way his sheet looked. I certainly don\'t think the Derby is the place for a betting coup-- there\'s an awful lot at stake without cashing a bet.
I bet Indian Charlie that race. But Real Quiet ran a bang up Santa Anita Derby and made a lot of sense at 8-1. I think Charlie was the favorite. I really can\'t remember.
Charlie was the favorite. He was very lightly raced and in those days many people believed that you needed more than just a few races to be ready for the Derby.
TGJB...I remember a coup....Does the name Doug Davis mean anything to you? The Derby is the best race for the coup!!!!!The poor owner is usually left out of the coup.