This is an interesting debate, one which needs to be extremely carefully considered before a decision is made. At this point I can see no compelling argument taking into account the fields that competed in Vase at Flemington or G1 Spring Champion in Sydney on Saturday. Impossible to say the Sydney race was stronger especially given the first 2 home were fillies. Flemington G2 had a full field, while Sydney had a small field despite racing for more money at G1 level. Also the view offered in article below suggest if derby was shortened the 2 3yos who ran in cox plate would have run there instead….would they? Also suggests the 3rd in guineas would be in derby, it’s been spelled, so I doubt it. Given the exact race that they are suggesting the derby becomes already exists at G1 level, was run on Saturday with a field that not even the biggest proponent of the change could suggest was in anyway superior to the same G2 race at Flemington on the day, it seems hard to justify when considering this year alone. Maybe we just have to accept that our juvenile G1 races are not going to meet the current race rating criteria that has been designed by breeders for breeders. Personally I have no objection to changing the distance of the Derby if there is a real benefit, I’m yet to see anybody make a compelling argument. So at this point I’d say why throw away 150+ years of history on a whim. One great point in the article, money rather than distance changes thinking. If the Derby was $5m does it matter if it’s G1, G2,G3? I’m sure of one thing the punters who are our customers and fund the industry don’t care. O’Brien, Waller and Maher weigh in on Victoria Derby distance debate heraldsun.com.au/sport/horse…