I'm looking for information from someone who happens to have a 92 KD program. Namely, the saddlecloth (or betting) numbers for Arazi and AP Indy. Not the post position numbers.
Thanks.
1992 Kentucky Derby program
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, Lucy, Diane
AP Indy was scratched. It looks, in the replay, like Arazi was #12.
http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2007/derby ... /1992.html
http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2007/derby ... /1992.html
So Run for the Roses, as fast as you can.....
I think AP scratched the morning of the race, so he'd still have had a program number - moot as it may have been. 
If you're feeling adventurous, you can watch the replay a bunch of times and try and figure out which number is missing!
I have the TB Times from that year, but the dang thing's in a stuck file drawer....very frustrating.
Someone who has a tape of the race telecast might have the info, too.
If you're feeling adventurous, you can watch the replay a bunch of times and try and figure out which number is missing!
I have the TB Times from that year, but the dang thing's in a stuck file drawer....very frustrating.
Someone who has a tape of the race telecast might have the info, too.
Re: 1992 Kentucky Derby program
steward wrote:I'm looking for information from someone who happens to have a 92 KD program. Namely, the saddlecloth (or betting) numbers for Arazi and AP Indy. Not the post position numbers.
They were still using a mutual field back then, so only 14 betting interests.
Looks like A.P. Indy would have won 11 and Arazi wore 13.
Field in PP order as drawn, before Indy's scratch:
1 Al Sabin
2 Technology
3 Snappy Landing*
4 Casual Lies
5 Thyer*
6 Devil His Due
7 Pistols and Roses
8 Conte Di Savoya
9 Sir Pinder*
10 Lil E. Tee
11 West By West*
12 Pine Bluff
13 Ecstatic Ride*
14 My Luck Runs North*
15 Dr. Devious
16 A.P. Indy
17 Dance Floor
18 Arazi
19 Disposal
*mutual field
First, thanks for your replies.
I'm about 95% positive that Arazi was #11 and AP Indy was #10 (before being scratched).
CD used the field through 1996. It was designated as the #12.
CD used the protocol that most tracks used consistently beginning sometime in the 50s. First, entries were bunched together at the top of the program as 1 and 1A (2 and 2B, 3 and 3C etc., if needed). The field horses were then bunched as the 12 (because tote equipment at big tracks could handle 12 interests - at other tracks like Keeneland it was only 10). Then the other horses were assigned the remaining numbers based on their PP order, even though the PP numbers and the betting numbers were different.
Before that time, some tracks used variations of that method. When Amtote first began in the 30s, a track may even have used the old mutuel ticket system of giving the lowest number to the morning line favorite. That is how Equipoise received the #1 for the first Big Cap, even though he wasn't in an entry or in the #1 slot. For that reason, it is impossible to reconstruct betting number information reliably from charts older than, say, the 1950s. Any why collecting old tote tickets without the program in hand is dicey.
I'm about 95% positive that Arazi was #11 and AP Indy was #10 (before being scratched).
CD used the field through 1996. It was designated as the #12.
CD used the protocol that most tracks used consistently beginning sometime in the 50s. First, entries were bunched together at the top of the program as 1 and 1A (2 and 2B, 3 and 3C etc., if needed). The field horses were then bunched as the 12 (because tote equipment at big tracks could handle 12 interests - at other tracks like Keeneland it was only 10). Then the other horses were assigned the remaining numbers based on their PP order, even though the PP numbers and the betting numbers were different.
Before that time, some tracks used variations of that method. When Amtote first began in the 30s, a track may even have used the old mutuel ticket system of giving the lowest number to the morning line favorite. That is how Equipoise received the #1 for the first Big Cap, even though he wasn't in an entry or in the #1 slot. For that reason, it is impossible to reconstruct betting number information reliably from charts older than, say, the 1950s. Any why collecting old tote tickets without the program in hand is dicey.