Horse Racing Forum

Hosted by Cindy Dulay (CindyDulay)

This is a place for friendly and civil discussion of horse racing of all types including handicapping.

  • 373
    MEMBERS
  • 20280
    MESSAGES
  • 3
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Are 20 too many?   Triple Crown

Started 5/5/19 by GoForGin; 2933 views.
ChiefsCrown

From: ChiefsCrown

5/8/19

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

Wintertrian

From: Wintertrian

5/8/19

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.  

RAESFAN

From: RAESFAN

5/9/19

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!

DogsUp

From: DogsUp

5/9/19

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.

  • Edited May 9, 2019 9:05 am  by  DogsUp
DogsUp

From: DogsUp

5/9/19

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

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

twoshots

From: twoshots

5/10/19

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.

Wintertrian

From: Wintertrian

5/10/19

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.

RAESFAN

From: RAESFAN

5/10/19

It is only once a year, and eyes are on this race that watch no other. For that reason, it could wind up being the spectacle none of us wants to see. If eight Belle had collapsed in mid-race instead of off camera on the gallop out, there is no telling what the effect would have been. It took twenty something horses to breakdown at Santa Anita to draw national attention, but I guarantee, if someone had fallen Saturday when the foul occurred, it would have been catastrophic in more ways than one. Why risk that, by having horses and jocks do so many things they've never done before; distance, size of field, level of competition, all place an unprecedented level of stress for all involved. In my opinion, it is simply amazing luck that no terrible spills have happened.

twoshots

From: twoshots

5/11/19

RAESFAN said:

Why risk that, by having horses and jocks do so many things they've never done before; distance, size of field, level of competition, all place an unprecedented level of stress for all involved. In my opinion, it is simply amazing luck that no terrible spills have happened.

It's all a matter of degrees. Why risk running gimped up cheap claimers at lesser tracks? The Derby is fascinating in that there have not been more injuries. It's gone on so long, I think perhaps that's more than luck. With the best horses and best jockeys, contrary to outward appearances of a 20-horse stampede, over the long haul it's a good deal safer than training horses at Santa Anita. I do believe in steps to make racing safer. I applaud the major circuits going to no race-day lasix, if they in fact follow through on it. I am all for policing other drugs to the extent possible, and if there is a way to solve the breeding issue of producing less-sturdy horses over the next decades, I'm for that too. And to some extent, I'm playing devil's advocate. But I don't favor limiting the Derby field. IMHO this hue and cry following a possibly dangerous situation is an over-reaction. Even though some on here have repeatedly, for a long time, said 20 horses is too many, it is also a unique handicapping opportunity which has produced large scores which I have followed on this forum year after year. (Still waiting for one myself.)

Where was the hue and cry after the Oaks last Friday when a horse got put in a vise by the two on either side of her, 20 yards out of the gate, resulting in horse and rider rolling on the track?

TOP