What's Happening to the Preakness is the Strongest Argument to change the TC

[SuperPickle]

Of all the arguments to move the dates of the Triple Crown it's what's happening to the Preakness.

The race is shaping up as the Derby winner and little else. Assmussen is considering it with the second placer finisher but he skipped it with Gun Runner last year. Pletcher will be sending no additional horses. Baffert could send the horse who ran second in Lexington but that's probably it. All the top betting choices from the Derby aside from the winner say no. Battle of Midway is a no.

So if Looking at Lee doesn't go and Chad Brown doesn't send Timeline Royal Mo becomes his primary competition.

The bottomline is if 15-17 Derby horses skip the Preakness year after year you've got to consider moving dates.

The Preakness is morphing into the Derby winner versus two weeks rest instead of a horse race.

[sour grapes]

yea lets change something that been around for 150 years.it just makes the belmont a harder race to win with fresh challengers for a potential triple crown.

[dilanesp]

The Preakness field depends on the perceived quality of the Derby winner. Spectacular Bid faced a tiny field; Mine That Bird faced a full field including the Kentucky Oaks winner.

If Always Dreaming is scaring people off, it is because trainers think he is likely to win. But just last year the Derby runner up ran and turned the tables despite Nyquist's then-undefeated record.

[PaceAdvantage]

The bottomline is if 15-17 Derby horses skip the Preakness year after year you've got to consider moving dates.No you don't.

[SuperPickle]

No you don't.

PA, not single you out since a lot of people share your opinion but you're wrong.

My close friend is essentially a crisis business consultant. Does a lot of work in industries like print media that have seen declining revenue over extended periods of time generally due to technology.

Anyone who works in this space of consulting sick businesses will tell you two common themes. People wait too long to call them and people don't really want to fix things. They have scared items. "We really want to re-invent our business but you can't change these eight things." Any consultant will tell you it's only works if everything is on the table. Otherwise it's just moving deck chairs on The titanic.

I don't want to move the Preakness but if you're argument is "blah, blah, tradition, blah blah 150 years" you be pretty much lost the debate.

Horse racing is a business not UNICEF. Give me a business reason.

[PaceAdvantage]

How has the Triple Crown suffered lately? Record crowds at every event.

How many were at the Derby yesterday? In the rain? TONS.

Don't tell me the Triple Crown is sick. It's not.

And we just had a TC winner.

Nothing needs to be changed, at least where the TC is concerned.

Tell me about the drastic falloffs in TC attendance and wagering before you start coming at me about how we have to fiddle with everything for no reason.

[Redboard]

Of all the arguments to move the dates of the Triple Crown it's what's happening to the Preakness.

The race is shaping up as the Derby winner and little else. Assmussen is considering it with the second placer finisher but he skipped it with Gun Runner last year. Pletcher will be sending no additional horses. Baffert could send the horse who ran second in Lexington but that's probably it. All the top betting choices from the Derby aside from the winner say no. Battle of Midway is a no.

So if Looking at Lee doesn't go and Chad Brown doesn't send Timeline Royal Mo becomes his primary competition.

The bottomline is if 15-17 Derby horses skip the Preakness year after year you've got to consider moving dates.

The Preakness is morphing into the Derby winner versus two weeks rest instead of a horse race.

A couple of years ago, Pimlico was spouting the same argument. I believe they had a conversation with Belmont which didn't go anywhere.

Their whole rationale was to get a better field.

[SuperPickle]

How has the Triple Crown suffered lately? Record crowds at every event.

How many were at the Derby yesterday? In the rain? TONS.

Don't tell me the Triple Crown is sick. It's not.

And we just had a TC winner.

Nothing needs to be changed, at least where the TC is concerned.

Tell me about the drastic falloffs in TC attendance and wagering before you start coming at me about how we have to fiddle with everything for no reason.

PA again you're not accurate. The Preakness isn't healthy. Both the track that holds it and race itself are ill.

Don't believe me? How about the guy who runs the race? Here's an article from Crome's Preakness talking about moving the race because not only doesn't the race itself draw but the other stakes don't draw the names the Derby and Belmont undercard do. You can't get less fake news than the head of the Preakness on the Preakness website...

http://www.preakness.com/news-center/latest-news/chuckas-addresses-potential-moving-preakness-date

So the Head of the Maryland Jockey Club disagrees with your assessment that all is fine in Preakness land.

[iamt]

A shallow Preakness field may diminish the Preakness as a sporting contest, and the wagering on the event but is it actually a bad thing for the Triple Crown itself??

The weaker the Preakness the more likely a Triple Crown is alive heading into the Belmont. Knowing the difference in interest and coverage between a live triple crown bid and a Belmont without, the Preakness suffering may actually still be in the interests of the Triple Crown as a whole.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I figured that these symptoms were obviously cause to just get rid of race and just make it a Double.

[rastajenk]

If the Pimlico people can't get the Belmont moved to July, maybe they should take that spot and become the third jewel. So the 3yo's go longer than they've gone before, then they go even longer, then they cut back for the finale. I'm not one for change generally, but I'm more against tweaks with good intentions having unintended consequences.

[thaskalos]

A shallow Preakness field may diminish the Preakness as a sporting contest, and the wagering on the event but is it actually a bad thing for the Triple Crown itself??

The weaker the Preakness the more likely a Triple Crown is alive heading into the Belmont. Knowing the difference in interest and coverage between a live triple crown bid and a Belmont without, the Preakness suffering may actually still be in the interests of the Triple Crown as a whole.

I think you have a point here...but this could easily backfire as well. If the Triple Crown is alive heading into the Belmont on a yearly basis...can the "interest and the coverage" continue to maintain the enthusiasm that they currently generate? How much "interest" can a bi-annual Triple Crown winner possibly generate?

[SuperPickle]

I think you have a point here...but this could easily backfire as well. If the Triple Crown is alive heading into the Belmont on a yearly basis...can the "interest and the coverage" continue to maintain the enthusiasm that they currently generate? How much "interest" can a bi-annual Triple Crown winner possibly generate?

Exactly. It's a double edged sword. Ideally you want a horse going for the TC every year to generate interest but at the same time you want them to earn the wins otherwise what's the point.

[iamt]

Chrome's owners after their defeat complained about having to run in the Preakness while other horse's were able to aim for the Belmont. Their is truth to their argument, they are disadvantaged by having to run in all 3 legs.

If connections don't feel they can beat the Derby winner in the Preakness then waiting gives them the best chance of preventing a Triple Crown bid.

Ideally what should happen is the more vulnerable Derby winners should be tested in the Preakness, if they survive it gives them more legitimacy for their Belmont bid.

[Fager Fan]

Just bring back the point system which rewards those who run in all 3.

[Hambletonian]

PA is spot on.

The Preakness has aways benefitted from having the Derby winner in the house. The rest of the field, however, is always a crapshoot.

I knew 10 minutes after the race that most of those horses were not going to Baltimore. Many did not run well enough, especially not well enough to win the Preakness. If the field is coming up short or weak a few may venture on just to try and hit the board for some also-ran glory.

Also, some years you have a couple of late developers who don't make the Derby but aim for the Preakness...probably not this year.

So we will have an odds on favorite in the Preakness...big deal, that is not really noteworthy. This has nothing to do with dates... if the race was next week, or next month, the same number of Derby runners would show up as will now.

At the end of the day, you get dusted, you look for another spot. If maybe they cancelled all the other three year old stakes this month, you would have a bigger field. Otherwise, it is what it is.

[dilanesp]

PA again you're not accurate. The Preakness isn't healthy. Both the track that holds it and race itself are ill.

Don't believe me? How about the guy who runs the race? Here's an article from Crome's Preakness talking about moving the race because not only doesn't the race itself draw but the other stakes don't draw the names the Derby and Belmont undercard do. You can't get less fake news than the head of the Preakness on the Preakness website...

http://www.preakness.com/news-center/latest-news/chuckas-addresses-potential-moving-preakness-date

So the Head of the Maryland Jockey Club disagrees with your assessment that all is fine in Preakness land.

It is very true that Pimlico is sick. But that's not because of the Preakness, it's despite it. And the Preakness will just move and survive if Pimlico closes- Stronach owns at least three tracks that can host it (and no, Baltimore cannot force him to hold the race in the city or Maryland in the state).

[SuperPickle]

It is very true that Pimlico is sick. But that's not because of the Preakness, it's despite it. And the Preakness will just move and survive if Pimlico closes- Stronach owns at least three tracks that can host it (and no, Baltimore cannot force him to hold the race in the city or Maryland in the state).

Finally a good take from a strong poster.

None of us know whether the reason trainers or owners avoid Pimlico is the crappiness of physical plant, the crappiness of the neighborhood or the cache of Churchill and Belmont.

But I know this. If the Preakness and it's card continue to be the weak leg of the Triple Crown Frank will do something. What that something is remains to be seen. But if you think a guy who's invested a few billion in this sport is going to run a third rate stake at a third rate track because a bunch of old horse players love tradition you don't know him.

[PaceAdvantage]

Finally a good take from a strong poster.I laughed.

But I know this. If the Preakness and it's card continue to be the weak leg of the Triple Crown Frank will do something. What that something is remains to be seen. But if you think a guy who's invested a few billion in this sport is going to run a third rate stake at a third rate track because a bunch of old horse players love tradition you don't know him.I laughed again! Thanks.

[PaceAdvantage]

Let me ask a simple question if I may, Mr. Pickle.

Attendance at the Preakness - higher than ever, or suffering deep declines?

How about the average handle for the card? In steep decline or setting records?

Oh, what's that? You want me to see the debacle that was last year's Preakness?

BALTIMORE – The Maryland Jockey Club announced that Saturday’s 141st Preakness Stakes (G1) set all-time records for total handle and attendance for the Middle Jewel of the Triple Crown.

A record crowd of 135,256 watched at historic Pimlico Race Course as Kentucky Derby (G1) runner-up Exaggerator handed Kentucky Derby and Florida Derby (G1) winner Nyquist his first defeat in nine career starts. Yeah, Stronach has quite the problem on his hands...I'm sure he's pacing back and forth right now figuring out how to revive this dying patient.

Oh, 2016 was a fluke you say? What about 2015?

The Maryland Jockey Club reported record attendance of 131,680 for the May 16 Xpressbet.com Preakness Stakes (gr. I) at Pimlico Race Course as well as an increase in pari-mutuel handle from last year's event.

The attendance figure topped last year's record of 123,469. Attendance topped 120,000 on two other occasions: 121,309 in 2012 and 121,263 in 2007.

Still not convinced you say? Give me another year! OK...2014:

Business figures for the Preakness Stakes on Saturday at Pimlico Race Course were all up compared to last year, with reported attendance at the track a record and handle on the race shooting up 8.3 percent, an indication that this year’s winner, California Chrome, will be heading to the Belmont Stakes as one of the more popular horses in recent history.

Betting on the Preakness shot up to $58.6 million compared to $54.15 million last year, with wagering gains strongest in the more traditional pools, according to charts of both races. Win betting was up 6.9 percent, exacta betting was up 6.8 percent, trifecta betting was up 11.4 percent, and superfecta betting was up 10.2 percent.

The 2013 Preakness and 2014 Preakness had several notable similarities.

Come on man...really?

[dilanesp]

I laughed.

I laughed again! Thanks.

To be clear, I think the Preakness does well at Pimlico, and that's why I phrased it as Pimlico dying "despite the Preakness".

My point isn't that Frank will move the Preakness, but rather that if Pimlico stops being financially viable as a racetrack and closed, he will card a 1 3/16th mile stakes for 3 year olds at one of his other racetracks. IOW, the Preakness is entirely secure under any scenario.

[depalma113]

Of all the arguments to move the dates of the Triple Crown it's what's happening to the Preakness.

The race is shaping up as the Derby winner and little else. Assmussen is considering it with the second placer finisher but he skipped it with Gun Runner last year. Pletcher will be sending no additional horses. Baffert could send the horse who ran second in Lexington but that's probably it. All the top betting choices from the Derby aside from the winner say no. Battle of Midway is a no.

So if Looking at Lee doesn't go and Chad Brown doesn't send Timeline Royal Mo becomes his primary competition.

The bottomline is if 15-17 Derby horses skip the Preakness year after year you've got to consider moving dates.

The Preakness is morphing into the Derby winner versus two weeks rest instead of a horse race.

Well, this is what happens when the Derby becomes nothing more than a glorified win and you are in event for horses that only race a couple of times leading up to it.

Modern training and the Derby points system is causing this, not the two weeks between races.

[Fager Fan]

Finally a good take from a strong poster.

None of us know whether the reason trainers or owners avoid Pimlico is the crappiness of physical plant, the crappiness of the neighborhood or the cache of Churchill and Belmont.

But I know this. If the Preakness and it's card continue to be the weak leg of the Triple Crown Frank will do something. What that something is remains to be seen. But if you think a guy who's invested a few billion in this sport is going to run a third rate stake at a third rate track because a bunch of old horse players love tradition you don't know him.

You really give those 3 reasons to why connections choose to skip the Preakness? Connections love the Preakness because the MJC makes it the most pleasant of the three for them. They skip because they don't want to run their horse back in 2 weeks, period.

Every year we get the predictable change the TC threads. Yawn.

[Fager Fan]

To be clear, I think the Preakness does well at Pimlico, and that's why I phrased it as Pimlico dying "despite the Preakness".

My point isn't that Frank will move the Preakness, but rather that if Pimlico stops being financially viable as a racetrack and closed, he will card a 1 3/16th mile stakes for 3 year olds at one of his other racetracks. IOW, the Preakness is entirely secure under any scenario.

There have been articles discussing the possibility of moving the race to Laurel.

[onefast99]

PA, not single you out since a lot of people share your opinion but you're wrong.

My close friend is essentially a crisis business consultant. Does a lot of work in industries like print media that have seen declining revenue over extended periods of time generally due to technology.

Anyone who works in this space of consulting sick businesses will tell you two common themes. People wait too long to call them and people don't really want to fix things. They have scared items. "We really want to re-invent our business but you can't change these eight things." Any consultant will tell you it's only works if everything is on the table. Otherwise it's just moving deck chairs on The titanic.

I don't want to move the Preakness but if you're argument is "blah, blah, tradition, blah blah 150 years" you be pretty much lost the debate.

Horse racing is a business not UNICEF. Give me a business reason.
Isn't there a show on TV called Bar Rescue that does the same exact thing?

[ronsmac]

Let me ask a simple question if I may, Mr. Pickle.

Attendance at the Preakness - higher than ever, or suffering deep declines?

How about the average handle for the card? In steep decline or setting records?

Oh, what's that? You want me to see the debacle that was last year's Preakness?

Yeah, Stronach has quite the problem on his hands...I'm sure he's pacing back and forth right now figuring out how to revive this dying patient.

Oh, 2016 was a fluke you say? What about 2015?



Still not convinced you say? Give me another year! OK...2014:



Come on man...really?Attendance is probably up, but nobody believes those "reported" attendance figures.

[SuperPickle]

Let me ask a simple question if I may, Mr. Pickle.

Attendance at the Preakness - higher than ever, or suffering deep declines?

How about the average handle for the card? In steep decline or setting records?

Oh, what's that? You want me to see the debacle that was last year's Preakness?

Yeah, Stronach has quite the problem on his hands...I'm sure he's pacing back and forth right now figuring out how to revive this dying patient.

Oh, 2016 was a fluke you say? What about 2015?



Still not convinced you say? Give me another year! OK...2014:



Come on man...really?


Yeah but PA you're comparing Preakness to Preakness. Frank and his guys are comparing the numbers to the other two races.

So riddle me this. Do you think the Preakness makes the smallest profit of the three races? Because I sure think so.

Because billionaires are generally far more concerned with what their competitors are making today versus what they made in the past. Frank's comparing 2017 Preakness to 2017 Derby. You're comparing 2017 Preakness to 2016 Preakness.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah but PA you're comparing Preakness to Preakness. Frank and his guys are comparing the numbers to the other two races.If Frank is no dummy, as you say, then he would never expect his numbers to be on par with the Derby, or with the Belmont when there is a TC on the line.

How does the Preakness compare with the Belmont when there is no TC on the line?

And the Preakness, TC or no TC, regularly beats the Belmont in terms of attendance...and by regularly, I mean almost every single time, no? Not sure about betting handle...since NY clobbers most everyone in terms of handle on most any day.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If Frank is no dummy, as you say, then he would never expect his numbers to be on par with the Derby, or with the Belmont when there is a TC on the line.

How does the Preakness compare with the Belmont when there is no TC on the line?

And the Preakness, TC or no TC, regularly beats the Belmont in terms of attendance...and by regularly, I mean almost every single time, no? Not sure about betting handle...since NY clobbers most everyone in terms of handle on most any day.

You've refuted his every point with hard data. You won't change his mind, even if all the facts are on your side. He's too emotionally attached to his baseless argument.

[upthecreek]

https://twitter.com/ConnieLeonard/status/861669409382858752

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The argument is that if they moved the dates of the TC races, then the accomplishment of any subsequent winner would be diminished. I'm not as willing to buy into that. If the Derby was the first Saturday in May, the Preakness on Memorial Day weekend, and the Belmont around 4th of July, the races might be more competitive, and it is less likely the horses that run in the Derby and pass the Preakness would have the same advantage. And horses would still have close to two months to prep for the late summer races - Haskell, Travers, PA Derby, and plenty of time to prep for the BC.

The 150 years of tradition argument is certainly not applicable to the some of the early versions of the Triple Crown. The Preakness Stakes was first run two years before the first Kentucky Derby, and the distance was a mile and a half.

In 1890 Morris Park Racecourse in the Bronx, New York hosted the Preakness Stakes. This race was run under handicap conditions, and the age restriction was lifted. The race was won by a five-year-old horse named Montague. After 1890, there was no race run for three years. For the 15 years from 1894 through 1908, the race was held at Gravesend Race Track on Coney Island, New York. In 1909 it returned to Pimlico.

It has only been since 1932 that the order of Triple Crown races has the Kentucky Derby first, followed by the Preakness Stakes and then the Belmont Stakes. Prior to 1932, the Preakness was run before the Derby eleven times. On May 12, 1917, and again on May 13, 1922, the Preakness and the Derby were run on the same day.

So I suppose we can call it a 75 year tradition.

[SuperPickle]

If Frank is no dummy, as you say, then he would never expect his numbers to be on par with the Derby, or with the Belmont when there is a TC on the line.

How does the Preakness compare with the Belmont when there is no TC on the line?

And the Preakness, TC or no TC, regularly beats the Belmont in terms of attendance...and by regularly, I mean almost every single time, no? Not sure about betting handle...since NY clobbers most everyone in terms of handle on most any day.

I said revenue not attendance. The Preakness packs a bunch of college kids in the infield at a cheap ticket. Meanwhile Churchill is get five figures for a lunch table.

You're missing the point. Frank is making a fraction of what CDI makes for their race. He making a fraction of what NYRA makes in most years. Given that doesn't the argument that guy would change either the date or location (which are both on the table.)

PA you're arguing two things you can't prove.

1. That Frank is making what you deem as enough money off the Preakness in its current form. I can tell you he disagrees with that.

2. That Preakness wouldn't draw better horses and be more profitable run at either another place or another date.

Your argument centers around the race in its current form meeting your personal standards. He's a guy who's torn down a lot of nostalgic things in this sport. He's about maximizing dollars not nostalgia.

[SuperPickle]

You've refuted his every point with hard data. You won't change his mind, even if all the facts are on your side. He's too emotionally attached to his baseless argument.

You do grasp there's no "hard data" in the post you quoted, right?

Is there data in there I'm missing ?

[VeryOldMan]

It has only been since 1932 that the order of Triple Crown races has the Kentucky Derby first, followed by the Preakness Stakes and then the Belmont Stakes.
But this is what we grew up with on the board, unless there are even more ancient people than I am :) Citation's win in 1948 followed by the 25 year drought until Secretariat.

As a Maryland resident I have no issue with the Preakness being moved to Laurel. Heresy, I realize.

[iamt]

I said revenue not attendance. The Preakness packs a bunch of college kids in the infield at a cheap ticket. Meanwhile Churchill is get five figures for a lunch table.

You're missing the point. Frank is making a fraction of what CDI makes for their race. He making a fraction of what NYRA makes in most years. Given that doesn't the argument that guy would change either the date or location (which are both on the table.)

PA you're arguing two things you can't prove.

1. That Frank is making what you deem as enough money off the Preakness in its current form. I can tell you he disagrees with that.

2. That Preakness wouldn't draw better horses and be more profitable run at either another place or another date.

Your argument centers around the race in its current form meeting your personal standards. He's a guy who's torn down a lot of nostalgic things in this sport. He's about maximizing dollars not nostalgia.


This thread started with a comment that the quality of the field should be the main driver for why the race should change DATES.

What is it that Frank and the MJC aren't doing to maximise revenue under the current structure. If crowd and boxes are at or near capacity, and charging as much as the quality of Pimlico itself will allow then improving the field won't change that. A better field would likely encourage more wagering but the lesser Derby runners may still prefer to rest and take on softer targets in the fall.

[thaskalos]

You've refuted his every point with hard data. You won't change his mind, even if all the facts are on your side. He's too emotionally attached to his baseless argument.

Aren't you afraid that SuperPickle will call you a "weak poster"? :)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

But this is what we grew up with on the board, unless there are even more ancient people than I am :) Citation's win in 1948 followed by the 25 year drought until Secretariat.

As a Maryland resident I have no issue with the Preakness being moved to Laurel. Heresy, I realize.

And if we change it tomorrow, in 75 years people will be saying about what whatever it changed to, but this is what we grew up with.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Wouldn't it be worth it to examine the reasons from the horseman's perspective as to why the Preakness Stakes often is under-filled and under-competitive...?

Then try to address those concerns...The horsemen are driving the action here...what are the alternatives that would be acceptable to the horsemen and good for the fans AND racing in general....?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Wouldn't it be worth it to examine the reasons from the horseman's perspective as to why the Preakness Stakes often is under-filled and under-competitive...?

Then try to address those concerns...The horsemen are driving the action here...what are the alternatives that would be acceptable to the horsemen and good for the fans AND racing in general....?

Every trainer with a three year old that he believed had a modicum of talent ran in the Derby. In my Derby selections, I identified 10 horses out of the 20 that I didn't believe could finish first or second. Nine of the 10 finished in the bottom 10 finishers. In fairness, one of the ten did finish second. But the point is that a decent handicapper could tell there were a few trainers who were approaching the race with stars in their eyes, which suggests asking them may or may not reveal anything useful. Once they've proven to themselves their horse was in over his head, why would they bother to prove it again two weeks later?

One suggestion was to spread the Triple Crown over two months rather than five weeks. A second suggestion is to limit the Derby starters to 14. That would leave at least six starry eyed trainers having to target the Preakness. If you want a Grade 1 placed horse, you just might have to wait until the Preakness.

[cnollfan]

I think you have a point here...but this could easily backfire as well. If the Triple Crown is alive heading into the Belmont on a yearly basis...can the "interest and the coverage" continue to maintain the enthusiasm that they currently generate? How much "interest" can a bi-annual Triple Crown winner possibly generate?

With one Triple Crown winner in the past 38 years, it seems premature to fret about the negative effects of bi-annual Triple Crown winners.

The one tweak I could support that would not really tinker with the success of the Triple Crown would be to add a week between the Derby and Preakness. Nobody runs their top horses back in 14 days anymore with this one exception.

Otherwise I wholeheartedly agree with PA. A lot of things in horse racing are broken these days, but the Triple Crown isn't one of them.

[dilanesp]

The one tweak I could support that would not really tinker with the success of the Triple Crown would be to add a week between the Derby and Preakness. Nobody runs their top horses back in 14 days anymore with this one exception.

Honestly I think it is very important not to do that, for this reason:

The reasons trainers give for not running horses very often are not truthful. The reality is that with respect to valuable horses (and only valuable horses-- sound claimers can have 15 or 20 starts in a year), especially valuable males, they don't want to lose races, and the way you avoid losses is by running only a handful of times each year.

So I think it is great that the TC, which is the one thing out there that trainers cannot duck if they win the Derby, forces the trainer to run three times in five weeks. Because the fact that the horse then comes out of it fine most of the time reminds the horse racing community that the entire bugaboo about light racing schedules is phony and that healthy three year old colts with a lot of breeding value can easily run three times in five weeks and be none the worse for it.

It calls attention to how craven and dishonest owners and trainers are about this subject, and for that reason alone it is an extremely good thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

I said revenue not attendance. The Preakness packs a bunch of college kids in the infield at a cheap ticket. Meanwhile Churchill is get five figures for a lunch table.

You're missing the point. Frank is making a fraction of what CDI makes for their race. He making a fraction of what NYRA makes in most years. Given that doesn't the argument that guy would change either the date or location (which are both on the table.)

PA you're arguing two things you can't prove.

1. That Frank is making what you deem as enough money off the Preakness in its current form. I can tell you he disagrees with that.

2. That Preakness wouldn't draw better horses and be more profitable run at either another place or another date.

Your argument centers around the race in its current form meeting your personal standards. He's a guy who's torn down a lot of nostalgic things in this sport. He's about maximizing dollars not nostalgia.And you're using ridiculous logic that the Preakness, in any universe, should be anywhere NEAR on par with the Derby or the Belmont (when there is a TC on the line).

The Derby is the derby. There is no other race like it in American racing. That's a fact. They don't call it the most exciting 2 minutes in sports for no reason.

Why would any sane executive think they are going to compete with that?

It would be akin to Roger Goodell wondering why the Pro Bowl doesn't generate the same kind of revenue as the Super Bowl.

In other words, insanity. Sorry to be so blunt, but you seem to be missing some major reality here.

[PaceAdvantage]

As a Maryland resident I have no issue with the Preakness being moved to Laurel. Heresy, I realize.I have no issue with them moving it to Laurel either. Just keep the same spacing between races.

[EasyGoer89]

I know this is a crazy thought but wouldn't better spacing be better for the health of the animals?

[PaceAdvantage]

Has there been a rash of catastrophic or career-ending injuries in Triple Crown runners lately? Do they get hurt at a higher than expected rate?

[Spalding No!]

Of all the arguments to move the dates of the Triple Crown it's what's happening to the Preakness. The race is shaping up as the Derby winner and little else.
If you look at the probables for this year's Preakness and look at the charts from past Preakness's, your assertion is not particularly compelling.

Assmussen is considering it with the second placer finisher but he skipped it with Gun Runner last year.
Gun Runner is a miler. He barely gets 9f. He won't stay 10f unless he runs against grass horses and/or the best horse in decades walks out of the gate.

Pletcher will be sending no additional horses. Baffert could send the horse who ran second in Lexington but that's probably it. All the top betting choices from the Derby aside from the winner say no. Battle of Midway is a no.
Classic Empire, the 2yo champion who had a rough trip in the Derby yet still ran 4th, is headed to Pimlico. So is Gunnevera, who was 5th choice at 10-1 is going. Among the top choices only Irish War Cry, who frankly should be in the race if he's healthy, and McCraken, who has physical issues and possibly distance limitations are not heading to the Preakness.

By the way, who cares about Baffert in this case? He didn't have a horse in the Derby and at least 2 classic prospects in his barn suffered major injuries. I'm not shocked that Pletcher isn't running one of his other speed horses against his speed-oriented Derby winner. He rarely runs in the Preakness anyways, and is 0-for-8 in his career.

The bottomline is if 15-17 Derby horses skip the Preakness year after year you've got to consider moving dates.
This is an exaggeration, possibly because a select number of trainers typically skip the Preakness (i.e. Pletcher and McLaughlin) or high-profile opt outs like Empire Maker still burn in the memory.

Every year, a handful of Derby also-rans go on to Pimlico. And actually, they do pretty well. Gate Dancer, Snow Chief, Tank's Prospect, Hansel, Pine Bluff, Tabasco Cat, Louis Quatorze, Point Given, Lookin At Lucky, Shackleford, Oxbow.

The Preakness is morphing into the Derby winner versus two weeks rest instead of a horse race.
This is another exaggeration. Plenty of new shooters show up every year, some of which make a dent in the race (Red Bullet, Rachel Alexandra, Bernardini, Alydeed, Cherokee Run, Concern, First Dude).

You might have the Preakness victories of California Chrome, Big Brown, Smarty Jones on the mind. But their respective Derbies were lopsided, too.

[Robert Fischer]

every year, regardless of reality
we:

whine about the crop being the worst ever
whine about the 'points'(or 'earnings' 6 years ago) system
whine about the Preakness likely runners or location
declare the triple crown unfair because of being too easy or too hard with horses pointed to races


etc, etc...

[AskinHaskin]

The one tweak I could support that would not really tinker with the success of the Triple Crown would be to add a week between the Derby and Preakness.


Uh, they did "add a week between the Derby and Preakness"... and now, it's fine as adjusted.


So yeah, good idea with excellent hindsight.

[AskinHaskin]

Of all the arguments to move the dates of the Triple Crown it's what's happening to the Preakness.

The Preakness is morphing into the Derby winner versus two weeks rest instead of a horse race.


LOL - that's an idiotic observation in that "Derby winner versus two weeks rest" has been a constant, and not a variable, since the times of Citation.

It is what it is, and whether you picked the winner, or whether you saw what you thought society owed you has zero bearing on what they should do.

Everyone knows you have to let the "cheaters and cowards" win some.

[dilanesp]

As long as we are in fantasyland, my modest proposal for changing the TC would be to maintain the current schedule but to impose a minimum number of starts for the Derby. Ideally it would be a double digit number like 12, but it could start at 8 or so.

This would solve the points/graded stakes earnings problem, which is frankly caused by everyone with a 3 year old with even one decent start wanting to run in the Kentucky Derby.

I recently watched the video of the 1985 Derby. Look at the number of starts given for each horse in the post parade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7855DvnfqQ

And notice as well how many horses were 99-1. The reason we don't have 99-1 shots in the Derby anymore is because most of the Derby starters only have 5 or 6 starts, which isn't enough to definitely establish a horse's form. We're throwing a bunch of horses into a 1 1/4 mile race carrying 126 pounds with almost no racing experience.

Requiring a minimum number of starts would curb Derby fever. Preparing a horse for the Derby would become something that an owner and trainer would have to commit to in advance, and the racing experience would do a lot of the horses a world of good.

And yes, I totally know this would never happen.

[PaceAdvantage]

The reason we don't have 99-1 shots in the Derby anymore is because most of the Derby starters only have 5 or 6 starts, which isn't enough to definitely establish a horse's form.Pretty sure that's not the reason.

[cnollfan]

Honestly I think it is very important not to do that, for this reason:

The reasons trainers give for not running horses very often are not truthful. The reality is that with respect to valuable horses (and only valuable horses-- sound claimers can have 15 or 20 starts in a year), especially valuable males, they don't want to lose races, and the way you avoid losses is by running only a handful of times each year.

So I think it is great that the TC, which is the one thing out there that trainers cannot duck if they win the Derby, forces the trainer to run three times in five weeks. Because the fact that the horse then comes out of it fine most of the time reminds the horse racing community that the entire bugaboo about light racing schedules is phony and that healthy three year old colts with a lot of breeding value can easily run three times in five weeks and be none the worse for it.

It calls attention to how craven and dishonest owners and trainers are about this subject, and for that reason alone it is an extremely good thing.

These are good points. The fear of valuable males losing a race or two has hurt horse racing.

[kinznk]

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/what-tradition-triple-crown-schedule-has-always-been-a-thing-of-change/

Here is an interesting article from a couple of years ago, that you may have seen. The author says the current spacing was put in place in 1969.

[Tom]

https://twitter.com/ConnieLeonard/status/861669409382858752

I estimate at least 3 new players will now follow racing.....two or three times a year.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I figure at least 4-500 players will never make another bet, forever associating racing with stupid hats and stupider people wearing them. :puke:

Enough already. Track feeds and TVG is all racing needs.
When have to miss live races while the worst TV network around has the rights to them but could not give a crap about anyone seeing them, we do not need main stream media coverage.

Did you actually see anyone on the two day broadcast you would WANT to to run into at the track.

Big ratings.......who gives a crap?

[AskinHaskin]

I recently watched the video of the 1985 Derby. Look at the number of starts given for each horse in the post parade:




OK, yeah, in a thread centered around the idea of changing the Triple Crown due to the seeming decline of the Preakness, lets cite 1985 as an example of anything.


Love or hate the current trends and conditions of Pimlico or the Preakness, at least the present-day norm is for the Derby winner to give the Preakness a go, which is more than can be said for 1985.

[dilanesp]

OK, yeah, in a thread centered around the idea of changing the Triple Crown due to the seeming decline of the Preakness, lets cite 1985 as an example of anything.


Love or hate the current trends and conditions of Pimlico or the Preakness, at least the present-day norm is for the Derby winner to give the Preakness a go, which is more than can be said for 1985.

That has always been the norm, Askin. There's only three Derby winners I can name since WW2 who skipped the Preakness for a reason other than an injury- Swaps, Gato Del Sol, and Spend a Buck. And by the way, none of those three Preaknesses were actually bad-- Nashua won in Swaps' year, and he was champion 3 year old. Aloma's Ruler went wire-to-wire on the track bias in Gato Del Sol's year. And Tank's Prospect set what was then the stakes record in Spend a Buck's year.

[ultracapper]

Spend A Buck was the inspiration for Visa putting up $5M to a triple crown winner. If not for that never-paid-out incentive, the triple crown could have become a thing of the past.

[tanner12oz]

I've been going to the preakness since afleet Alex. We have awesome seats tight on the rail.and no chance I give them up. That being said the experience has gone downhill...its never been good but its for sure gotten worse. Along with that I've seen an almost 100% increase in ticket price since I started going. Its family, its tradition but I cringe when I send my renewal in yearly cuz its not worth it. They aren't going to invest a dime into pimlico and the experience, facility will continue to detiorate year after year.

[SuperPickle]

Let me ask a simple question if I may, Mr. Pickle.

Attendance at the Preakness - higher than ever, or suffering deep declines?

How about the average handle for the card? In steep decline or setting records?

Oh, what's that? You want me to see the debacle that was last year's Preakness?

Yeah, Stronach has quite the problem on his hands...I'm sure he's pacing back and forth right now figuring out how to revive this dying patient.

Oh, 2016 was a fluke you say? What about 2015?



Still not convinced you say? Give me another year! OK...2014:



Come on man...really?


PA, let me ask you two questions...

1. The Preakness frequently draws on par with the Derby and given the year can even out draw it. What percentage of the revenue CDI makes on the first Saturday in May does Frank make on the third? Because I think we both know it's a fraction. The handles about half but we both know Frank doesn't make half.

2. Which race made Frank more money? The Pegasus or the Preakness? And. Y how much? The Preakness does around $90 million in handle the first Pegasus did $40 million. But you have a higher ticket cost and more luxury seats.

[dilanesp]

PA, let me ask you two questions...

1. The Preakness frequently draws on par with the Derby and given the year can even out draw it. What percentage of the revenue CDI makes on the first Saturday in May does Frank make on the third? Because I think we both know it's a fraction. The handles about half but we both know Frank doesn't make half.

2. Which race made Frank more money? The Pegasus or the Preakness? And. Y how much? The Preakness does around $90 million in handle the first Pegasus did $40 million. But you have a higher ticket cost and more luxury seats.

1. I don't believe the Preakness has ever outdrawn the Derby in the same year, dating back to the days of Col. Winn.

2. The Pegasus took advantage of a unique facet of Gulfstream-- it is a major league track with an extremely small grandstand full of amenities such as tables and restaurants. As a result, Stronach was able to create a perfect storm-- ridiculous ticket scarcity (a race that could draw 40,000 held in a plant that could accomodate less than 20,000) and extensive amenities. That meant the sky was the limit on tickets.

I suppose Gulfstream could accomodate the Preakness under the same conditions, but really, part of what makes the Preakness a big event are the crazies in the infield and the huge crowd, so why would you want to?

[SuperPickle]

1. I don't believe the Preakness has ever outdrawn the Derby in the same year, dating back to the days of Col. Winn.

2. The Pegasus took advantage of a unique facet of Gulfstream-- it is a major league track with an extremely small grandstand full of amenities such as tables and restaurants. As a result, Stronach was able to create a perfect storm-- ridiculous ticket scarcity (a race that could draw 40,000 held in a plant that could accomodate less than 20,000) and extensive amenities. That meant the sky was the limit on tickets.

I suppose Gulfstream could accomodate the Preakness under the same conditions, but really, part of what makes the Preakness a big event are the crazies in the infield and the huge crowd, so why would you want to?

My preference like everyone's here is for the Preakness to be run on the third Saturday in May at Pimlico.

However the purpose of my original post was to outline the case for moving the date of the race which I think is legit. Apparently that's a felony on PA since I was shouted down.

The only strong opinion I have is this. The Stronarch folks know Pimlico has to be torn down. It's literally falling apart. To people on the outside where the race is run and when it's run are two unrelated issues. I think for Frank they're not. I think Ritvo and his guys look at it as if "you're going to change the track if you're going to seriously change the date do it then versus before or after."

The bottomline is also I'm convinced there's a business case for moving the race and if Frank did it I would understand it.

[iamt]

Where is there any suggestion that moving the date would increase what they can charge for tickets/hospitality at Pimlico. The event in its current for is as successful as the physical plant allows, changing dates is not going to change that.

The second issue is whether moving dates would get a better field (which is no guarantee) and whether wagering would be improved. The quality of races (including the Preakness) MIGHT improve, but you also risk losing the attention of casual fans given the length between races.

[PaceAdvantage]

2. Which race made Frank more money? The Pegasus or the Preakness? And. Y how much? The Preakness does around $90 million in handle the first Pegasus did $40 million. But you have a higher ticket cost and more luxury seats.

The Pegasus took advantage of a unique facet of Gulfstream-- it is a major league track with an extremely small grandstand full of amenities such as tables and restaurants. As a result, Stronach was able to create a perfect storm-- ridiculous ticket scarcity (a race that could draw 40,000 held in a plant that could accomodate less than 20,000) and extensive amenities. That meant the sky was the limit on tickets.The estimate I have heard (and this is conservative), is that Frank lost about $8M on the Pegasus.

There was, for all intents and purposes, NOBODY THERE and I hear they PAID fake celebs to show up. In short, it was a shit show and they lost a ton of money.

It was basically run as a private party by Belinda for all of her friends. And you know how much those can cost...

[castaway01]

It's great to have Stronach's money around because he's obviously a huge financial supporter of the game, but virtually every racetrack investment he's made has been a classic screwup. This is a guy who once managed to have slots at a track and still lose money. For all of the wisdom he's spent in his racing investments, he might as well have put the money in the infield and lit it on fire. His errors have been catalogued forever here and are almost comical for someone so smart in other areas of business.

[dilanesp]

The estimate I have heard (and this is conservative), is that Frank lost about $8M on the Pegasus.

There was, for all intents and purposes, NOBODY THERE and I hear they PAID fake celebs to show up. In short, it was a shit show and they lost a ton of money.

It was basically run as a private party by Belinda for all of her friends. And you know how much those can cost...

I believe this. Hadn't heard it, but definitely believe it.

[depalma113]

The handle for Preakness Day Card last year was over $94 million with $3 million in purses.

The handle for the Belmont Day Card last year was over $99 million with $8 million in purses.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

The handle for Preakness Day Card last year was over $94 million with $3 million in purses.

The handle for the Belmont Day Card last year was over $99 million with $8 million in purses.

Hard to compare the two on non triple crown years. 2015 with AP they did almost $119 million. Belmont is at the mercy of what happens at Pimlico. Pimlico is always at an advantage getting the derby winner. Anyone have an idea the last time a derby winner did not race in the preakness? I would imagine it was a long time ago but curious to see what would happen if the derby winner skipped it and how it would have affected handle.

[cj]

Hard to compare the two on non triple crown years. 2015 with AP they did almost $119 million. Belmont is at the mercy of what happens at Pimlico. Pimlico is always at an advantage getting the derby winner. Anyone have an idea the last time a derby winner did not race in the preakness? I would imagine it was a long time ago but curious to see what would happen if the derby winner skipped it and how it would have affected handle.

Grindstone was injured before the Preakness. I think he is the last one and that was 1996. Spend A Buck in 1985 is the other one I remember. He skipped the race for the Jersey Derby and a big bonus Garden State Park was offering. It was the impetus for changes to the Triple Crown.

[magwell]

The estimate I have heard (and this is conservative), is that Frank lost about $8M on the Pegasus.

There was, for all intents and purposes, NOBODY THERE and I hear they PAID fake celebs to show up. In short, it was a shit show and they lost a ton of money.

It was basically run as a private party by Belinda for all of her friends. And you know how much those can cost...
I was there and that's the way it was......

[dilanesp]

Grindstone was injured before the Preakness. I think he is the last one and that was 1996. Spend A Buck in 1985 is the other one I remember. He skipped the race for the Jersey Derby and a big bonus Garden State Park was offering. It was the impetus for changes to the Triple Crown.

Before that Gato Del Sol in 1982 (his trainer knew pretty well that the horse couldn't win the Preakness) and Swaps in 1955 (Rex Ellsworth simply thought the TC was BS and the best races for Swaps would be out in California-- his judgment was validated as Swaps became an all-time great).

[stlseeeek]

If Always Dreaming is scaring people off

Yikes, if trainers are scared of a horse who had the best part of track, on a biased track, and ran 26.1 and 26.2 to finish the race, then trainers are pussies.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Grindstone was injured before the Preakness. I think he is the last one and that was 1996. Spend A Buck in 1985 is the other one I remember. He skipped the race for the Jersey Derby and a big bonus Garden State Park was offering. It was the impetus for changes to the Triple Crown.

Interesting seeing how things have changed over the last 20 years. Annual handle was higher than it was now at $11.6 billion in the US, and the Preakness card that day handled $17 million and they had like 85k in attendance. Granted they now run a couple more races on the Preakness card and the purses are better, but they really have grown the product since then.

[AskinHaskin]

Hard to compare the two on non triple crown years. 2015 with AP they did almost $119 million. Belmont is at the mercy of what happens at Pimlico. Pimlico is always at an advantage getting the derby winner. Anyone have an idea the last time a derby winner did not race in the preakness? I would imagine it was a long time ago but curious to see what would happen if the derby winner skipped it and how it would have affected handle.


That logic makes perfect sense when comparing attendance on-site, but the Derby winner taking the Preakness and then heading to Belmont does not alter the total purses paid on the Belmont card. The point is that the Preakness card holds-up fine, comparatively speaking (and as strange as it may seem).

[dilanesp]

Interesting seeing how things have changed over the last 20 years. Annual handle was higher than it was now at $11.6 billion in the US, and the Preakness card that day handled $17 million and they had like 85k in attendance. Granted they now run a couple more races on the Preakness card and the purses are better, but they really have grown the product since then.

People don't realize this because the rest of the sport has declined, but the TC is much bigger now.Even Secretariat drew only 70,000 or so for the Belmont despite being on the cover of Time snd Newsweek. The Preakness used to draw 40,000 in the 1960's and 80,000 in the 1980's. The Derby's television rating now beats World Series games, 25 years ago the baseball would have had twice the audience.

The TC is just about the only part of the sport that is working.

[Thomas Roulston]

How has the Triple Crown suffered lately? Record crowds at every event.

How many were at the Derby yesterday? In the rain? TONS.

Don't tell me the Triple Crown is sick. It's not.

And we just had a TC winner.

Nothing needs to be changed, at least where the TC is concerned.

Tell me about the drastic falloffs in TC attendance and wagering before you start coming at me about how we have to fiddle with everything for no reason.



Agree. The TC isn't sick. But Pimlico is, with its huge distance gaps both on dirt (6 furlongs to 1 1/16 miles - no even 1m70y races) and turf (5 furlongs to 1 mile). Among other things, this is why a Breeders Cup will never be run at Pimlico. Laurel, maybe.

[davew]

Just bring back the point system which rewards those who run in all 3.

didn't they have some sort of 'challenge' which awarded points for finish position in all 3 races?

[camourous]

didn't they have some sort of 'challenge' which awarded points for finish position in all 3 races?

They used to award $5 million i believe if you won the triple crown and $1 Million to whoever ran in all 3 and earned the most points. Think that ended after Prairie Bayou broke down.

[Tom]

Today's card is hand down one the best I seen i a long long time.

It will probably in the top 10 of the whole year.

Hi Ho Pimlico!

(Which way to Kegzilla? :headbanger:)

[Thomas Roulston]

The point system they used had a flaw in it, which was exposed when Bet Twice, after finishing second in both the 1987 Derby and the Preakness, won the bonus over Unbridled 11-10 after Unbridled finished fourth in the Belmont. The point system used was 5 for 1st, 3 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd.

If you made it something like 10 for 1st, 6 for 2nd, 4 for 3rd, 3 for 4th, 2 for 5th, and 1 each for 6th through 10th, and also require starts in all three races, you can keep the battle for the bonus alive even if the same horse won the Derby and the Preakness, if the same horse also finished second in both races, but the Derby-Preakness winner would have to practically DNF to blow the bonus while the Derby-Preakness runner-up wins the Belmont.

[Pensacola Pete]

It's about the money and pride. The Derby gets 20 every year because 20 owners want to say they had a horse in the derby and/or they want the chance, no matter how small, of their horse winning it, meaning bragging rights and supposedly higher stud fees. The same isn't true of Preakness or Belmont winners. Also, when a horse wins the Derby, all other horses lose their chance for the Triple Crown. And many trainers don't want to go against the Derby winner if the horse was dominating; they'd rather look for an easier race.

Ironically, winning the Derby doesn't always mean endless huge stud fees. The horse has to produce winners. Smarty Jones, who won the 2004 Derby and Preakness, is standing for $7,500 this season, while Tapit, who finished ninth in that Derby, and who had a very modest racing career, commands $300,000.

[dilanesp]

The point system they used had a flaw in it, which was exposed when Bet Twice, after finishing second in both the 1987 Derby and the Preakness, won the bonus over Unbridled 11-10 after Unbridled finished fourth in the Belmont. The point system used was 5 for 1st, 3 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd.

If you made it something like 10 for 1st, 6 for 2nd, 4 for 3rd, 3 for 4th, 2 for 5th, and 1 each for 6th through 10th, and also require starts in all three races, you can keep the battle for the bonus alive even if the same horse won the Derby and the Preakness, if the same horse also finished second in both races, but the Derby-Preakness winner would have to practically DNF to blow the bonus while the Derby-Preakness runner-up wins the Belmont.

It was actually Alysheba, not Unbridled.

There's no perfect point system. I do like the idea of a point bonus though, and wasn't at all bothered when Bet Twice won it because Alysheba laid an egg in the Belmont.

[Thomas Roulston]

It was actually Alysheba, not Unbridled.

There's no perfect point system. I do like the idea of a point bonus though, and wasn't at all bothered when Bet Twice won it because Alysheba laid an egg in the Belmont.


You're right. It was Alysheba. Unbridled was also 4th in the Belmont though - and both Alysheba and Unbridled had to come off Lasix in the Belmont after using it in both the Derby and the Preakness which is no doubt why I confused them - making Claiborne Farm's commercial including Unbridled in their list of "Lasix-free stallions" a case of blatant false advertising.

But 4th is not laying an egg. 11th say is.

[dilanesp]

You're right. It was Alysheba. Unbridled was also 4th in the Belmont though - and both Alysheba and Unbridled had to come off Lasix in the Belmont after using it in both the Derby and the Preakness which is no doubt why I confused them - making Claiborne Farm's commercial including Unbridled in their list of "Lasix-free stallions" a case of blatant false advertising.

But 4th is not laying an egg. 11th say is.

It wasn't simply that Alysheba was 4th (although given how good he really was, that was a very poor performance). Bet Twice won the race by something like 14 lengths. Alysheba got his behind kicked.

[Thomas Roulston]

It wasn't simply that Alysheba was 4th (although given how good he really was, that was a very poor performance). Bet Twice won the race by something like 14 lengths. Alysheba got his behind kicked.


But if a race's purse distribution makes no distinction as to beaten lengths, then why should a point system?

It needs to be set up so that if the same horse wins the Derby and the Preakness he has to just about pull a Big Brown in the Belmont to blow the bonus. Otherwise it is blatantly unfair.