More Hysterical Nonsense- Dick Jerardi

[alysheba88]

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/14645235.htm

[46zilzal]

the press is the one that hyped this one into the stratosphere when there was POTENTIAL only.

[DerbyTrail]

Actually, Jerardi's "First Saturdays" (May, June, July) has a great deal of merit and has been discussed plenty the last few years. Moving the Classics to 30 day intervals would also provide continuity in the divisions for a renewed Triple Tiara (Oaks-Susie-Acorn) and improved prospects to make the Woodford Reserve-Dixie-Manhattan a Series, etc..

Or is having 4-5 fabulous divisional "Crown" series like that over 60 days hysterical nonsense too?

[chickenhead]

the "move the Belmont to 1 1/4" is the one I have a real problem with. That's just stupid.

[tholl]

On the one hand he is bitching (with good reason) about the American horsemen breeding for speed and then he wants to SHORTEN the distance of the Belmont. The last thing that should be done is shorten races.

[alysheba88]

The discussion about Belmont is absurd. Mile and and a half is less stressful than mile and a quarter. Answer to everything is to shorten the distance. Why not make the Derby six furlongs and the Belmont seven furlongs.

I can possibly be convinced to spread out the Preakness to three weeks from the Derby but thats it.

If the Breeders had a clue about breeding for distance and the chemists were jailed much of these problems would go away. But not all, you cant legislate away every injury.

Why didnt Jerardi write the article before the Preakness? Would he have wrote it if Greeley's Galaxy broke down?

Maybe if Barbaro had more foundation in him he wouldnt have broke down, instead of being babied. Maybe it would have happened anyway. But babying these horses isnt the answer either. But you never hear or read about that. Instead they want to run less and with more rest. Why not just run twice a year.

[Suff]

From Jeradi
The solution is really not all that complicated. The Derby stays right where it is - first Saturday in May. The Preakness goes to the first Saturday in June. The Belmont is run the first Saturday in July. With that, there would be at least 4 weeks between each race. Some years, depending on the calendar, there might be 5 weeks if a Saturday came in the first few days of a month.


IMHO, (or prediction)

When the NYRA franchise expire's next year, I envision a significant shakeup in the meet dates in New York. I'm predicting an expansion of the Summer Saratoga meet. Any for profit, or publicly traded corporation will be obligated to milk the GOLDEN GOOSE for all its worth.

With that said, I would not be surprised to see Maryland taken out of the Picture all togther. Kentucky Derby in May, Preakness at Belmont the middle of June and the Last leg at Saratoga in August.

Or something to that effect. I'm not the first one that broached this scenario. I read it somewhere else and it struck me as a "winner' on two fronts.

1. Strech out the Fans Interest window.

2. Safer on the Horses.

Anyone's guess.

[blind squirrel]

On the one hand he is bitching (with good reason) about the American horsemen breeding for speed and then he wants to SHORTEN the distance of the Belmont. The last thing that should be done is shorten races.

you know DICK is right,the races are to long.

KY DERBY:FIRST SATURDAY IN MAY 300 YDS
PREAKNESS:JUNE 7 350 YDS
BELMONT JULY 7:"THE TEST OF CHAMPIONS" 400 YDS
moved to LOS ALAMITOS......DICK,come back to us!!

[witchdoctor]

Many people think that the problem is breeding more precocious and speedier sires. Shortening the races will just exacerabate the problem. Maybe what we need to do is spread the races out to every 4 weeks and change the distances with the Ky Derby staying at 10 f, increasing the Preakness to 12 f, and increasing the Belmont to 16 f.

[ceejay]

Is there any data or evidince that Babaro's injury was caused or worsened by the quick turnaround from the Derby to Preakness?

[Stevie Belmont]

I like Dick Jerardi. He is a good writer and has good opinions. He is a pretty sharp capper as well. With that said, I would not want any changes to any of the Triple Crown races.

[Two Bucks To Win]

One solution (but one which will never be mentioned because it brings up the sport's dirty little secret) is to completely ban the use of steroids in racehorses, and to kick out anyone caught using them. People don't realize the effects on the skeletal structure that these powerful drugs cause. Steroids weaken the bones for whatever short-term gain in speed is achieved.

[Skanoochies]

I agree Stevie. There has been 132 Derbys, 131 Preaknesses, 138th Belmont coming up. Thats a lot of races, a lot of horses. Would anyone have stats showing how many horses have broken down, suffered career ending injuries? I am as devastated as anyone over Barbaros misfortune. But do we really want triple crown winners every few years? This a true test of champions IMO. Good horse will not win the TC. It takes a great horse IMO . Leave it the way it is. :confused:

[dccprez]

you know DICK is right,the races are to long.

KY DERBY:FIRST SATURDAY IN MAY 300 YDS
PREAKNESS:JUNE 7 350 YDS
BELMONT JULY 7:"THE TEST OF CHAMPIONS" 400 YDS
moved to LOS ALAMITOS......DICK,come back to us!!


Laughing my ASS off! (best post of the week so far!)

But let's also change the Travers to a 5F Turf Sprint on the last weekend in August!
We'll settle up the Horse of the Year debate in the 1 mile Breeder's Cup Classic on Decemer 2 at Turfway!

You ROCK squirrel! :ThmbUp:

[alysheba88]

Dick Jerardi's answer to rising gas prices would no doubt be the reducing of the size of gas tanks

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree Stevie. There has been 132 Derbys, 131 Preaknesses, 138th Belmont coming up. Thats a lot of races, a lot of horses. Would anyone have stats showing how many horses have broken down, suffered career ending injuries?

Union City, in 1993, was the first FATAL breakdown in a Triple Crown race since 1959.

Then you had Prairie Bayou a few weeks later (TWO fatal breakdowns in the same year, and racing survived), then Charismatic and Barbaro (both non-fatal).

Not sure of the non-fatal breakdown stats prior to 1993, but this is what I read in a recent article.

Still, that gives you four major breakdowns in the past 13 years, which doesn't sound all that bad, until you consider that it only constitutes 39 races. Four major breakdowns in 39 races is a lot.

[alysheba88]

In the 1990 BC, three horses died in one day. Racing survived. The BC thrives.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm only talking about the Triple Crown in this case....

[JPinMaryland]

The problem I have with the article from the stand pt. of a well reasoned argument (as opposed to the one about equine safety) is that Jerardi's thesis is that we should change the spacing of the races because times have changed. He pays homage to the great horses of the 1970s acknowledging that they were run w/ 2 weeks between the derby and Preakness but he says racing has changed. How so?

Then comes this:


"Again, why? The races were not always spaced in this manner. In fact, the races were not always in this order. It has been changed before. Change it again..."

So now he goes back 80+ years or so when the races werent in this order and distance for Preakness was not the same, etc.


WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW RACING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE GLORY YEARS OF THE 1970S? :bang:

The only thing a casual racing fan can conclude is that the spacing of the races has changed since the 1970s or something like that.

Not well written intellectually.

[JPinMaryland]

One argument that I dont quite get is the one that if we lengthen the time between the races this will somehow make the Triple crown easier to win? Why? Wouldnt all the horses competing in the TC series benefit from the break? You might see a better calibre of competition rather than the shortened fields in the Preakness and Belmont. Especially the Belmont.

Can someone e.g. Skanoochie, who is advocating that argument put forth some data or something objective as to why lengthening the time span would make the TC easier to win?

I think if that sort of objection can be overcome there might be a chance for a longer time between races.

[Two Bucks To Win]

What I don't get is that selective breeding is supposed to improve the breed of the species in question, but what is actually happening with the thoroughbred is that the breed has actually been degraded to the point where a horse can't even run 3 races in 5 weeks now, or run more than a few races without breaking down.

[JPinMaryland]

Yeah I dont get that either, horses certainly ran more often in the 1950s and 1960s. There is objective data on that.

Not sure if I've seen any data on breakdown rates since those days. I think in the 1960s it stood at 1 every 500 horse starts, so e.g. one per week at a meet.

HOrses are running quite a bit less often and breaking down at the same rate or perhaps even faster. What is going on?

Is it a question of stud fees going through the roof that caused a certain pampering of the horses? or is it a decline in purse sizes? or both?? Beyer had a good article on the poor purse structure in the weekend edition of DRf.

***

Another issue is the advent of Polytrack in this argument. Will this mean that there will be a competitor to the TC series? Much e.g. Indy and Kart in auto racing? Surely horses that run on polytrack will be less likely to go in the derby, preakness etc.

[alysheba88]

One argument that I dont quite get is the one that if we lengthen the time between the races this will somehow make the Triple crown easier to win? Why? Wouldnt all the horses competing in the TC series benefit from the break? You might see a better calibre of competition rather than the shortened fields in the Preakness and Belmont. Especially the Belmont.

Can someone e.g. Skanoochie, who is advocating that argument put forth some data or something objective as to why lengthening the time span would make the TC easier to win?

I think if that sort of objection can be overcome there might be a chance for a longer time between races.


While I am not one who believes in using that argument as a means for maintaining the status quo, I can see the merits. Because if its a level playing field- all spread out all main contenders with the same rest, there is no advantage to anyone theoretically. However, now there is a disadvantage built in to the Derby winner which is part of the allure of the Triple Crown. A Smarty Jones has to face a well rested and fresh Birdstone, while Smarty had to go through the grind. I understand you could come back and say well Birdstone could have run in the Preakness then if it was spaced out, but there is no guarantee he would have, and again all that would mean is a level playing field. The allure is the TC horse overcoming disadvantages to win.

You would still have horses falling by the wayside no matter how they space it out, and looking for other spots, especially with the current purse structure. Now if they raised purses to say $3,000,000 for each TC race you would see significantly larger fields in the last two races no matter if they spread it out or not

[JPinMaryland]

there is logic in what you say. Okay putting that aside is there empirical evidence? I mean can we look at another series of races that is more spaced out, perhaps the triple tiara, or perhaps the handicap triple crown (does it still exist) or perhaps the races at Saratoga. Do these series of races get swept more often??

Again, not sure what the spacing of these races is, but if we can find a series w/ more spacing and look at that..

[PaceAdvantage]

HOrses are running quite a bit less often and breaking down at the same rate or perhaps even faster. What is going on?

Wait, how do you know this? Breakdown statistics at the national level are non existent.

Are they running more races these days than in the past? Are there more racetracks in existence now than in the past? I would have to venture a guess that the answer to both these questions (given year-round racing) is a big fat YES.

[JPinMaryland]

I dont know that. I should have been more clear. I have seen data on how many starts they are averaging and the horses today are starting much less than in previous decades. I dont have breakdown data it has been suggested by some that there are more breakdowns today but I dont know. It is more anecdotal, I guess. Doesnt anyone keep breakdown data??

[PaceAdvantage]

Compared to 30 years ago, if there are more horses, and more races, then it figures there will be more breakdowns, regardless if average start per horse is down.

[Joe L.]

the "move the Belmont to 1 1/4" is the one I have a real problem with. That's just stupid.


Out of curiosity, why do you think it is "stupid"? 10f or 12f makes no difference to me, but there are not many 12f dirt races.

[chickenhead]

I think it's stupid in that the shortening of all stakes races will only reinforce the tendency to breed only speed, as many others here have said.

What we need are more distance races, 1 1/2 and up, more incentive to add stamina into the pedigree, not less.

[Joe L.]

Why didnt Jerardi write the article before the Preakness? Would he have wrote it if Greeley's Galaxy broke down?


Here is Jerardi's e-mail. jerardd@phillynews.com,ask the source directly.

[Joe L.]

I think it's stupid in that the shortening of all stakes races will only reinforce the tendency to breed only speed, as many others here have said.

What we need are more distance races, 1 1/2 and up, more incentive to add stamina into the pedigree, not less.
I don't think Jerardi is advocating shortening ALL stakes races, and carding more 12f and up races would not necessarily end the speed breeding, at least not right away. Maybe more Euro's will ship over?

[chickenhead]

no, he was advocating shortening the Belmont, the only Triple Crown race beyond 1 1/4. Why? What good would it do the breed to shorten it? Answer: None. It wouldn't have any effect at all, other than to reinforce the breeding of miler speed.

I never said it would solve all the problems right way, it took awhile for the breed to get ruined, it will take time to make it right again. If the Euros want to ship over, great! Maybe we can watch some decent horses then.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Smarty Jones never raced past the Belmont Stakes. Nor did Afleet Alex. Poor Barbaro is just trying to survive after the Preakness. This can't be a coincidence."
As I posted, many TC nominees were hurt PRIOR to any TC races- and Barbaro did not complete the race.
More telling, is that many owners and trainers do not choose to compete in all 3 TC races, even when their horses are heathly.
Do the 3 year old colts have more options now which graded stakes race to compete in? Are there more 3 year old colt graded stakes than prior to 1976?

[Bathless]

FWIW, a few years ago, blood stock agent Mark Reid, former trainer of the ill-fated Mr. Nickerson, appeared on 'Let's Go Racing', Philly Park's weekly recap show. Jerardi is the regular 'side-kick' of host Keith Jones. Reid opined that because of breeding trends, drugs and environmental issues, he finds it hard to believe that today's t-bred is even remotely related to the horses of the 50s and 60s in terms of stamina and durability.

On the show, Jerardi appears to be something of a garden variety slug who is also a first class red-boarder. He's a sports writer with a deadline; he had to write about something. Controversy sells papers. Good time to dust this off.

Look what they've done to baseball. You want home runs? We'll give you homeruns. So they lowered the mound, juiced the baseball, brought in the fences and made the strike zone the size of a shoe box. I'm waiting for MLB to bring in the aluminum bat. The only reason we haven't seen it yet is probably because of the genuine danger that some player or fan will get killed.

Want to do the same thing to the Triple Crown? I want the next Triple Crown winner to earn the right to be mentioned with Slew, Affirmed, and Secretariat.

If we never have another TC Winner, so be it.

[JPinMaryland]

Compared to 30 years ago, if there are more horses, and more races, then it figures there will be more breakdowns, regardless if average start per horse is down.

But the other thing I was going to say was this...Assume that horses run only 1/2 as much as 40 years ago. I forget what the actual number is. But if say 1/2 and if breakdowns are still occuring at the same regularity per start, then the breakdowns per horse would actually have doubled.

Again I dont know the exact numbers but I'm just saying there could be an exponential increase in breakdowns per horse given that horses start a lot less than they did way back...

[Joe L.]

FWIW, a few years ago, blood stock agent Mark Reid, former trainer of the ill-fated Mr. Nickerson, appeared on 'Let's Go Racing', Philly Park's weekly recap show. Jerardi is the regular 'side-kick' of host Keith Jones. Reid opined that because of breeding trends, drugs and environmental issues, he finds it hard to believe that today's t-bred is even remotely related to the horses of the 50s and 60s in terms of stamina and durability.

On the show, Jerardi appears to be something of a garden variety slug who is also a first class red-boarder. He's a sports writer with a deadline; he had to write about something. Controversy sells papers. Good time to dust this off.
If we never have another TC Winner, so be it.
Sounds like Reid agrees with Jerardi. I don't know Jerardi but I do know that when he was the handicapper for the Phila.Daily News, he was better than most public cappers. The year the BC was in Canada, he had the first four winners of the pick 6 selected on top in the paper. Pretty good, especially for a public capper. :ThmbUp:

[Two Bucks To Win]

Dick Jerardi is a horse's patoot. By his reasoning the only way that Barbaro's injury could've been avoided is if the distance of the Preakness were shortened to one furlong. He's another one putting out swill like this and dancing around the issue of drugs, because as long as horses are being 'roided and medicated it doesn't matter how short the races are or how much time there is between races. :rolleyes:

[Joe L.]

Dick Jerardi is a horse's patoot. By his reasoning the only way that Barbaro's injury could've been avoided is if the distance of the Preakness were shortened to one furlong. He's another one putting out swill like this and dancing around the issue of drugs, because as long as horses are being 'roided and medicated it doesn't matter how short the races are or how much time there is between races. :rolleyes:
You are correct, he does not mention medication in the article and that is a BIG issue, however, he only suggested to shorten the Belmont from 12f to 10f (not shorten the Preakness to 1f) and space out the races... he didn't suggest that this would stop ANYTHING or solve any problems... just that it "MIGHT" keep horses healthier and racing longer. :cool:

[Tom]

I think Jerardi is correct on most counts - the Triple crown is, IMHO, too much too soon for today's breed. Even Lukas suggested changing it a while back - Derby 9.0 furlongs, Preakness 10, three weeks laters, and I forget what about the Belmont.

People are rushing to mandate every track in the country go to polytrack after one short meet at Turfway, yet ignore how many 3 yos are breaking down and never running again after the Cripple Crown series.

Tradition be damned - it is worhtless. They just celebrated Bonds breaking Babe Ruth's record - drug enhanced and how many extra games every year?
Tradition is wearing stupid hats at the Derby and coats and ties in sweltering August heat at Sartoga. Racing needs to be run in reality. This breed today is not the same breed that gave us past TC winners.

But I could be wrong.

[Two Bucks To Win]

I still fail to see how shortening races would in any way solve the problem. Selective breeding should be making a better breed but the opposite is happening. Horses used to run 2 miles in the Jockey Club Gold Cup but now they can't even go 10 furlongs? Triple crown winners from years past ran a more grueling schedule and would even win races between the triple crown races but now can't even run three races without breaking down? What is wrong with this picture? Making races shorter is a useless bandaid which will solve nothing as long as we damage the racehorses by pumping them up with dangerous drugs and breeding runners with roid-damaged genes. Is it any coincidence that European runners seen to last longer and break down less? They do not allow their horses to be drugged, and manage to run very long races on a routine basis.

[Tom]

2 Bucks - the selective breeding is the problem - they are bred to run fast early and this has made them more fragile. Throw in an early triple crown series that emphasizes stamina and look how many never race again after it - or part of it.

My suggestion - outlaw 2 yo racing. Barbaro was only what, a week into his real third year?

From a strictly handcaipping point of view - how excited can one get about a mile and a half three year old race? How many mile and a half races does Belmont even card in a year?

That clubhouse turn at big sandy is a waste of real estate - they might as well put hot dog vendors out there fro all the use it gets. I just see no sense or use in carding a 3yo race at that distance when they hardly card mile and eithg races anymore.

One thing is for sure I have no interest at all in makeing a bet on the Belmont, nor even who wins it for that matter. The triple crown is irrelevant this year, and that one stupid race is just a waste of horseflesh.
Might as well run the Belnmont on TURF - at least there are opportunities on the grass at marathon distances.

[alysheba88]

Belmont will be a great betting race. Track itself is a great one to bet and visit.

Dont buy the irrelevant nonsense

[Tom]

I didn't buy it, I am selling it! :D

[kenwoodallpromos]

Isn't the Preakness 9 1/2 now?
How about requiring an ITM finish in a stakes route or whatever, to eliminate the stupid "rabbit" from the classics? Has anybody said we need faster splits in the Preakness? Which of thes 5f and fade fasties are really helping the classics?
The way I heard it leading up to the route "classic" 2006 Preakness was the trainers considering how close to the speed demons their horse should be. Personally I couldn't care less how fast the winner ran the first 2f.
(My apologies to the idiots who sold and bought the 16 mill Green Monkey. When can I bet the Ky Derby future book on the 1f wonder? Will they rename him the Green Rabbit?) :D

[Tom]

Ken, you are right, of course.
I meant Derby 9.0, Preakness 9.5 and Belmont 10.0 furlongs.

I like this idea - Derby, first Saturday in May, preakness, first in June, Belmont, first in July, Travers, end of August. Three races wtih 4 weeks in between each and the Saratoga Jewel 7-8 weeks after that. then, end of September, October for the better 3's to get geared up to take on thier elders in the preps for the BC. Solid racing May - November, with plenty of rest time and plenty of opportunities.

[alysheba88]

Ken, you are right, of course.
I meant Derby 9.0, Preakness 9.5 and Belmont 10.0 furlongs.

I like this idea - Derby, first Saturday in May, preakness, first in June, Belmont, first in July, Travers, end of August. Three races wtih 4 weeks in between each and the Saratoga Jewel 7-8 weeks after that. then, end of September, October for the better 3's to get geared up to take on thier elders in the preps for the BC. Solid racing May - November, with plenty of rest time and plenty of opportunities.

Cant see that solving anything. As it is now horses take a long break from the Belmont until the August stakes. Almost two months. The above schedule would eliminate that. Meaning you would be asking three years to run from January to November and not get hurt

[alysheba88]

Meant to say you would be asking three year olds to run from Jan-Nov basically non stop

[Tom]

Cant see that solving anything. As it is now horses take a long break from the Belmont until the August stakes. Almost two months. The above schedule would eliminate that. Meaning you would be asking three years to run from January to November and not get hurt

But with ample opportunity to rest and heal between races. That is not important, too?