Winter....

Good points!! Especially the comparison between Justify and Winx.

All

IMHO less than 20, say 14

Less breeding/less foal population

Less put in auction

More home breds kept

Less people getting into racing ownership

Auction prices would go down

Derby attraction for general population*,  and perhaps world wide would deminish

* Not the infield

Handle and advertising would diminish

Preakness and Belmont Stakes would be devalued on many fronts

Cause a lot of yawning

Uhhhh....i'm guessing.....you're thinking, 14's too few from that post??

DogsUp said...

Cause a lot of yawning

Better than horror.   I wince at the start of EVERY Ky Derby, not about who is going to win but that everyone comes home safe.  I don't like chaos nor do I like demolition derby type events.

I was at Oaklawn watching when Eight Belles went down.  I had to run out into the parking lot to throw up.  I get sick when I see stuff like that.  Larry jones and everyone in that barn was shell shocked and emotionally stricken for quite a number of years after that.  

I admit that I still get giddy on Derby Day, especially right before the race. However, I am also anxious about particularly, the cavalry charge around the first turn. I was reminded Saturday that the danger is not limited to that portion of the race. Yes, in my opinion, 20 is too many!

My comments on 20 field Derby to  say 14 runners...above is what the reality of the Industry ..breeding, auction, sales price at auction, etc would be projected with mathamatically cutting the field by a third.

I'm not into Bull fights, bull runs, car races and release... let bugs/flies out of my house, car, camp rather than kill them.

See item 26... Regarding ...The Industry estimated facts.

I scream out loud too! No matter where I am.

Yes, 20 is too many, that's why it only happens once a year. And I say keep it that way, for the showcase it has become. Even among the knowledgeable people on this forum, it is the most popular racing event of the year, judging by the number of posts. If the prime concern is safety of the horses, make every race just 2 horses. Or better yet, run them all separately and award the one who clocks the fastest time. Still there could be breakdowns. For the safety of the horses, no racing at all is the way to go. But that's not what racing fans want.

Sweet 16!

twoshots said...

If the prime concern is safety of the horses, make every race just 2 horses

I don't think safety of horses and human riders requires quite so much of an extreme.

But yeah, safety of the horses IS a prime concern, at least to me. :shrugs:  Also, when they go down, usually the rider does too.  Know any riders personally who have spent the better part of a year in rehab trying to regain the use of their legs?   I do.  

Our THRILLS  aren't worth that.  Sorry, there is absolutely no comparison. 

Yes, racing has inherent dangers.  But there is no reason not to do what is w/in reasonable boundaries to make it safer, without detracting from the overall spectacle of a big race iwth lots of neat horses.