JB... I don't believe it is two starts that is the issue, it is how the two starts are viewed in the context of the horses lifetime PPs. For example, Barbaro was not out of training from before his debut race in October straight through the Preakness. He raced five times from 10/4 through 4/1 and worked out continually in between.

Similarly, Closing Argument raced 8/25/04, 9/4/04, 10/23/04, 11/13/04, 12/4/04, 2/5/05, and 4/16/05. Two preps, yeah, but clearly not out of training for EIGHT MONTHS leading to the Derby.

However, when you have horses with big breaks who were taken out of training like Circular Quay, Great Hunter, and Street Sense, it does mean something that they have only raced two times... especially the latter two; where it could be argued that their Blue Grass was a public one mile workout. If they win, so be it. But I'll be damned if I'm taking the Derby favorite and possible 10-1 or less horse (CQ) when they are going to be asked to do something extraordinary with less than perfect preparation.

Victory Gallop is clearly the best argument for two preps. He was idle from November 1 to March 21... but in the BIG picture, wound up being a very fast horse who was sturdy enough to carry his form over to his 4 yo season. Here's another difference... you got 15-1 on VG in the Derby...do you want the same risk at 7-2 on Street Sense?

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I think that the different preparations may
> increase the number of new tops-- or in some cases
> the chances of pairing tops. By the way, the
> question of horses with only 2 preps has been
> discussed only in terms of whether they have won.
> Even aside from the numbers they have run, look at
> the finish positions of those horses-- Closing
> Argument being the most recent example, Victory
> Gallop another. If Barbaro had run 12/31 instead
> of 1/1 last year, he would be yet another.
>
> The reference to the low % of new tops is in the
> seminar.