Talk:2023 Kentucky Derby

qualifying based on 2021?

This article says that qualifying for the 2023 Derby based on races in 2021. Why is that? Is it actually true? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

should there be some mention of this

https://apnews.com/article/kentucky-derby-horse-deaths-churchill-downs-ae115e68a43c45ba3b17d54ce973d4db 149.20.252.132 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The deaths of the horses quoted did not occur in the event. The article should not be used as a platform for issues in the industry.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Horse deaths section

Proposing that the section "Horse deaths" be removed from the article, seconding @Brudder Andrusha, and expanding in lead that the Derby was noted for its mainstream media coverage of equine deaths in the days leading up to the race. The deaths, with the exception of Wild on Ice, are not germane to the race itself. JRHorse (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

While they did not affect the race itself, public perception of the Derby includes everything happening at Churchill Downs in the week leading up to it, and especially the day of the Derby. Horses died on Saturday, and there is really no other place to talk about it. We don't have an article about the 2023 spring meet at Churchill Downs or a 2023 horse racing season article for this to go in. Unless the deaths continue or the scandal gets enough coverage as the investigations continue to merit its own article, it should be addressed in this article. That can't sufficiently be done in the lead alone. Perhaps the section should be moved after the results section and renamed something like "Horse deaths during Derby Week" to emphasize they didn't have an impact on the race Ha2772a (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Most mainstream US media outlets referenced the deaths in the headline of articles declaring Mage as the winner; the deaths at Churchill Downs were considered notable by reliable sources in discussion of the Kentucky Derby. It would likely violate maintaining a neutral point of view to eliminate the section. I think that putting the section beneath results doesn't make sense, and removes due weight from the topic.

Example headlines:

• The New York Times – "Mage Captures the Derby After an Agonizing Week at Churchill Downs" (print title: "15-to-1 Shot Prevails In a Race Shadowed By Death and Doubt")
• Associated Press – "Mage wins star-crossed Kentucky Derby amid 7th death"
• The Washington Post – "Mage wins Kentucky Derby after run-up rife with scratches and tragedy"
• Fox News did not include the deaths in their headline ("Mage wins 149th Kentucky Derby"), but did in the article.
• Reuters – "Mage wins Kentucky Derby, seven horse deaths being investigated at Churchill Downs"
• CNN did not mention the deaths in their headline ("Mage wins the 149th Kentucky Derby"), but did discuss them in the article.
• ESPN did not mention the deaths in the headline ("Mage overtakes Two Phil's down stretch, wins Kentucky Derby"), but did in the article.
• NBC News – "Mage wins the 149th Kentucky Derby, capping a volatile lead-up in which 7 horses died in recent days at Churchill Downs"

Wracking ^💬 20:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)