...provide nice payoffs for people who play it right.

Beyer says in the article that Blues and Royals' chances are doomed due to the arrogance and poor judgment of his owner. Yet, in the same article, he closes with this rousing conclusion

"Blues and Royals might have a remote chance at Churchill Downs if the sheikh sent him to the U.S. for a second prep race, such as the Lexington Stakes on April 23 at Keeneland in Kentucky. But if the sheikh clings stubbornly to his discredited methods and sends Blues and Royals to the Derby with only one start as a 3-year-old, he can't win - even if the colt is the best dirt runner of his generation."

Who is guilty of arrogance and poor judgement here? I have no idea how to train a Kentucky Derby winner, but I bet there is no one right way. I also bet that having the best horse helps a lot.

I will take healthy odds on the best horse even if the trainer and the owner are numnuts (which may not even be the case here -- btw is this trainer the same guy who had some positives at Saratoga?). It seems pretty arrogant and a case of poor judgment to turn down a healthy odds bet on the best horse in the race just because you think the horse's owner is a moron.

I am glad Beyer wrote this. I hope lots of people like Classhandicapper agree with him. If this horse comes in with the best top by 3 points over any other competitor and a long price, he would be a great bet in my book -- EVEN WITHOUT ANOTHER START!

It is thinking like Beyer's that sent Arcangues off at healthy odds against a weak BC field.

I really think that all this 'prep' handicapping is a bunch of malarkey and love that people get very distracted by it. To me, all that matters is the effort you project the horse to run in the race and adjustments for trip and weight. I will project this horse to pair up in the Derby off his Dubai number. If that is a great number in relation to his competitors, then he is a good bet in my book (unless his odds are too low). If you think this is unsophisticated like that other poster's wife's play, so be it! If it works, who cares.

What great horse lost the Derby because of insufficient preps? It was not Point Given. That Derby was a race that was affected by pace. PG was too close to a brutal pace. Only he and Congaree were not obliterated by that pace. In fact, it was that blistering pace that probably made jockeys think differently in War Emblem's derby the next year.

Everybody cites all these horses that failed off the wrong 'prep', but 19 horses a year fail in the Derby and a lot of them suck (Great Redeemer anyone?). Does this mean 19 trainers are idiots every year and did the wrong thing? Of course not!

To me, the bigger issue is how often has the best horse lost because of the wrong prep? I would like to see a list of those. I do not know the answer, but it would be very interesting. In the meantime, I hope everybody keeps talking up this moronic 'prep angle' so my odds can go higher and higher.