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...