I knew that CD Carryover was gonna be tough...lol

You gotta love computers, how did we ever do without them? I did a quick little study on slow time Derby winners. Essentially, I looked for any slow times and I judged them slow by the closing fraction. I don’t purport that is a scientific manner…lol I listed the indicated track condition. Sometimes it wasn’t wet, so threw I those in anyway. I have to say, I discontinued looking when I realized there were a lot of slow time winners in the 40’s and 50’s and the theory I based looking into this upon was not holding up at all.

Before I threw in the towel, I looked up 1925 a little more carefully and in all candor its hard to make any kind of summary about 1925. That year the Belmont was 1 mile and 3/16ths. The Derby winner didn’t hit the board in the Preakness or Belmont, but I don’t know if he even ran. For that matter the leading money earners from the Derby were nowhere to be found. I think for the years 1989, 1958 and 1948 (all on wet tracks) a case can be made for my initial theory (i.e. big separation on a tiring Churchill surface reveals Belmont placing). That’s far from absolute, as all is in this game, and I think modern racing has to be factoring into that theory. However, I think Easy Goer, Little Current, Tim Tam and Citation lend some support to my theory. Obviously the key is…..

How good is the horse?..and if I'd started with that I'd of saved myself 90 minutes....lol:

<a href = "http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/djdalton/Slow_Derby_Winners.xls"> </a>