Owner Rick Porter raised more than a few eyebrows when he announced that Eight Bells, a probable favorite for the Kentucky Oaks, may actually run in the Derby. The outrage surrounding the decision had nothing to do with running a filly in the premier horse race in America but rather on the concern that Eight Bells would be entered only to end up running in the Oaks.

Under current rules, only 20 horses can be entered for the Derby. However, nothing prohibits an owner from entering a filly in both the Derby and the Oaks. The problem is that if the filly ends up running in the Oaks, she will have denied another legitimate contender a place in the Derby.

Rick Porter has been unapologetic about his decision stating that in his view there is nothing “illegal or unsportsmanlike” about entering the filly in both races; he notes that “this is a business and not just a sport.” His decision will be controversial only if Eight Bells draws a bad post position for the Derby and scratches.

What will not be controversial is the ability of this filly to compete with the best colts of her generation. Her top Beyer speed figure, a 99, makes her on paper a strong contender. It is also very positive that she has already shown a liking for the dirt and with nine lifetime starts, four of those in the current year, Eight Bells is already a very experienced performer.

One issue against may be that only three fillies have ever managed to win the Derby. Regret in 1915, Genuine Risk in 1980 and Winning Colors in 1988. However, only 38 fillies have ever raced in the Derby, the latest being Excellent Meeting who finished fifth and Three Ring who finished 19th in 1999.

Three out of 38 is not a bad statistic for the Derby. Fillies are winning at a healthy rate of 8%; which means that according to the numbers; theoretically, a filly has a better chance of winning the race than a horse trained by Todd Pletcher who is 0 for 19!

In conclusion, Eight Bells is a strong contender especially considering all the question marks surrounding much of the field and as Rags to Riches proved last year, the girls can beat the boys even at the top of the sport.

On Friday, I had the pleasure of seeing the movie The First Saturday in May. I had been a little reluctant to go because of the mixed reviews it received. However, Alan from Left at the Gate pushed me in favor of going with his review of the movie.

The movie is playing at Cinema Village in New York until Thursday May 1, as well as in select theaters across the country.

The documentary follows six horses, including Barbaro, on the road to the Derby. Throughout this journey, the movie captures beautifully the equine and human stories behind the greatest race in America.

All of the six very different trainers that are profiled talk about what it would mean to them to make it to the Derby. Some of them have waited twenty years or more to make it to the big race. This sets up the drama for the horses’ subsequent races, as each tries to get enough earnings to make the field.

The human stories are all powerful. From Frank Amonte, an assistant trainer with years in the business that finally gets a shot with a top prospect to Michael Matz who went from Olympian medalist to Derby winner. We meet the trainers, their families and the staff who day in and day out take care of these magnificent animals.

In a deeper level the movie captures the power and mystique of the Derby. Its ability shape the dreams and aspirations of everyone associated with the sport and the overwhelming odds that any trainer and owner face of actually getting there.

But perhaps the greatest achievement of the directors was to pick, very early on, five horses that actually made the derby, all of whom had a great chance of winning. From Brother Derek and Lawyer Ron to Belmont hero Jazil, the movie captures most of the horses that turned out to be the favorites for what Barclay Tagg called the most competitive Derby field he had ever seen. And of course, there is Barbaro, the eventual winner by one of the largest margins in history.

The movie would have been fantastic had it ended there but the directors did go on to tackle the issue of Barbaro’s tragic accident in the Preakness – albeit very tastefully. Making the ending seem like patch work, an epilogue put together last minute to accommodate the tragic event.

The movie itself is designed to build up to only one thing – the Derby. So whatever comes after that is not only anticlimactic, it is not supported by anything in the plot. It leaves the viewer feeling lost and a little depressed.

I spoke with one of the Hennegan brothers after the film and asked him about the ending. He confirmed that when they set off to do the project they had only intended to film up to the Derby but when Barbaro won so impressively, they decided to keep shooting in case they had a Triple Crown winner in their hands.

After filming, they were not sure how to end it but they were completely surprised by audiences when they screened the film. He told me “you would be surprised how many people don’t know what happened to Barbaro. Some think he is still alive, others think he got hurt in the Derby itself.”

The Hennegan brothers see this film not just as a simple documentary but also as a time capsule, designed to capture the reality of that particular Derby. They were very fortunate to share in the rise of Barbaro to the highest place in thoroughbred history; so they felt responsible to also speak about his tragedy. Especially, when they found that many people just don’t know what happened. They want people to know and they want people to care. In achieving this, the ending of the movie is successful.

The documentary is a powerful film, about people and horses. The stories are heartwarming, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, but always engaging. We share in the dreams and disappointments of those involved as they keep fighting for their chance, their day in the Derby. We are taken through a great emotional ride, and in the process we get a close look at what makes the Derby one of the bet races in the world.

It is a film that no horse enthusiast should miss! Especially, not on Derby week!

The Kentucky Derby is only a few weeks away and press coverage of each contender is already at full blast. During the next few weeks we will hear about every aspect of the training, health, eating habits, right down to the choice of shoes of each of the potential participants.

It is easy to get carried away by all the commentary and the hype and lose sight of the elements that are most important in sorting out the contenders from the pretenders.

Today, I want to discuss one of the factors that will receive much of the attention from both turf writers and fans -Pedigree.

How important is an individual horse’s pedigree in evaluating potential Derby success?

Ever since Leon Rasmussen wrote in the early 80s that “no Kentucky Derby winner since 1929 had a Dosage Index higher than 4.00” handicappers and journalist have analyzed the pedigrees of Derby contenders almost obsessively.

The Dosage Index classifies horse pedigrees by type and assigns a number that reflects the ability that a horse has to compete at a specific distance – the lower the number, the greater the aptitude to compete at classic distances.

The idea that a number derived from pedigree alone could single handedly eliminate almost half the field from contention in the Derby was simple and alluring. And it worked!

It worked, that is, until in 1991 when a horse by the name of Strike the Gold won the Derby despite the fact that his Dosage Index was 9.00. His win was followed by wins by Real Quiet, Charismatic and Giacomo all of whom had Dosages in the higher than 4.00. These results put an end to Dosage as a theory for predicting Derby winners.

However, the idea that pedigree can be used to somehow gain an edge in selecting Derby winners did not die with Dosage. The race is now on to find the next magic number, explanation, or gimmick that will give a handicapper an edge in predicting Derby success.
Pedigree, as a general matter, can only give us the probability that a particular horse will have certain characteristics. The law of genetics is random in selecting traits that will be handed down to through the generations.

Therefore, we often see horses that display very different characteristics from the ones we expect to see by looking at their pedigree. For instance, a sprinter type who is able to succeed in the classics (Smarty Jones) or a turf horse that really likes dirt racing (Cigar).
For me, although a hard-core Pedigree enthusiast, Pedigree is not very important in handicapping this race. I believe that the usefulness of Pedigree is inversely proportional to the amount of additional information available on a given horse.

Pedigree is most important when planning a mating because there is no information available on the prospective foal (except of course the physical characteristics of the parents which should be taken into account).

At the yearling sales, pedigree is still crucial but it loses some of its importance because we have plenty of information on the build, conformation and temperament of the foal in question.

Finally, by the time a horse is ready to run, pedigree may still shed some light on certain factors like the ability of a foal to mature early or her preference for a specific surface but as soon as the gates open the usefulness of pedigree as a predictor of success is diminished even further.

The only relevant use of bloodlines in this Derby may be to try to determine which of the horses that have been successful in Polytrack may actually take to the dirt surface of Churchill downs – a surface they have never tried. But even here other factors such as workouts prior to the race may be much more telling.

We have too much information on Derby entrants to focus on bloodlines. Looking at genetics to predict Derby success is like using a meat cleaver to perform a fine surgery, it’s blunt and unnecessary.