Why versus Why Not

[Indulto]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-sp.crown04jun04,0,6576578.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-sp.crown04jun04,0,6576578.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines)
Triple Crown in need of polish? by Sandra McKee
… Lou Raffetto, the president and chief operating officer of the Maryland Jockey Club, said the idea of change should be explored.

…I've wished for a long time that we had three weeks between the Derby and the Preakness. Four would be better."
At Churchill Downs, track president Steve Sexton said he believes … the argument that the crown can't be won doesn't apply.

In New York, Bill Nader, senior vice president of the New York Racing Association, said he is open to discussing changes in the series …

… "I would do it only if there was convincing evidence that it would help the horse by reducing the chance of injury ..,"I wouldn’t expect any support for change from CD. The status quo is fine for them. They gain nothing from any loss of tradition, even though having more Derby runners in the Preakness and more Derby and Preakness competitors in the Belmont would be better for racing in general.

Regardless of whether you believe the breed is not as robust, or that spacing of races has no impact on true champions, or that “real” Triple Crown winners have to prove themselves over 5 weeks, the likelihood is that wider spacing would result in larger, more competitive fields in the last two legs, and possibly more rivalries like Affirmed/Alydar or at least Secretariat/Sham, Majestic Prince/Arts and Letters, or Alysheba/Bet Twice.

A longer Triple Crown schedule might also maintain interest in the series longer (assuming more press coverage of each participant and their connections) and attract new fans. “Why not?” is now a more appropriate question than “Why?”.

[bettheoverlay]

Does CD have a say in any decision that Pimlico and Belmont might take to space the races over more time?

[kenwoodallpromos]

CD cannot move the their thing back 2 weeks because of the "prep races". So both Preaknes (Stronach) and the NYRA who some don't like on here, would have to agree to move theirs back, losing some momentum off the KY Derby.

The best solution is to get bigger sponsorship for all the TC races, bill them as important individually as well as together, then timing will not matter. Develop a point system for stakes race finishes and lots of points for the winners of the Ky Derby and Preakness toward Horse Of The Year Honers (make HOY only for 3 Yr old males). 3 Yr old males are already considered the top of the breed by the industry, racing press, and breeders.
Now, without the Ky Derby the other 2 would be viewed by the general public as just other races- that is why a TC champion is pondered and publicized no matter who wins the Ky Derby.
But do not take my word for it- just check the Belmont Stakes audience this year, with no Ky Deby or Preakness winner, no potential Eclipse winner or HOY winner running!
If the Belmont winner this year got points for winning, say 10 points for BC Classic and KY Derby, 8 points for Preakness and Belmont, 6 points for other grade 1's, 5 for grade 2's, 4 for grade 3's, 3 points for graded place finishes, and 2 points for graded show finishes, the Belmont might mean more this year.

[GeTydOn]

In New York, Bill Nader, senior vice president of the New York Racing Association, said he is open to discussing changes in the series …

Gimmee a break!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It shouldn't be open for discussion. PERIOD!

[Indulto]

Gimmee a break!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It shouldn't be open for discussion. PERIOD!GTO,
Apparently Nader would do it to avoid giving you a breakDOWN [to watch]. ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

I think what we're all really saying here is that many trainers and owners are incompetent. WE as a group have to make the task of winning a triple crown EASIER because these guys can't do what's best for their horses? If they can't help BUT enter their horse in the Triple Crown, no matter if the horse is ready for the rigors of such a campaign, well then, that's their fault, is it not?

Why bother having trainers in the first place? Isn't it their job to decide whether or not their horse can handle running in the Derby, Preakness and Belmont? Why should we make the task easier? These are three, very special races that over time have come to MEAN SOMETHING to this sport.

The job of the Triple Crown ISN'T to attract full, competitive fields. BUT IT DOES anyway, at least in the Derby, where one would expect there to be many competitors.

Of course the Preakness and Belmont aren't usually going to have as many horses as the Derby. It's the nature of the event. Spacing out the races even more isn't going to attract substantially more horses to the Preakness and Belmont. The only thing that will attract more horses to the Preakness and Belmont is MONEY. Raise the purses SUBSTANTIALLY, and you will see more horses.

The people looking to space out the Triple Crown races, and/or alter the distances of the race are nothing but knee-jerk reactors. They are misguided folks who feel they are doing right by the horse, but in reality they are only serving as enablers. They are enabling those breeders who breed for speed and precociousness. They are enabling the incompetent trainers who don't know their horse, or don't want to know their horse.

Anytime a horse gets hurt in a triple crown event, the buzz always starts about shortening the races, or spacing them out. None of those changes would have helped Barbaro. Go watch the replay. He was in tight ALL AROUND in the moments before his breakdown, with Greeley's Legacy and Brother Derek right behind him. You can clearly see that his injury was most likely caused by this close contact.

In fact, if you base your opinion on what happened to Barbaro, one can argue that making the Triple Crown more competitive, with fuller fields, will lead to MORE breakdowns, not less. Then again, unexpected results are usually the norm when you rely on knee-jerk reactions to dictate policy changes.

[Indulto]

PA,
First let me say that my desire to consider (but not yet advocate) changing the TC spacing has nothing at all to do with the issues of trainer competence or speed-emphasizing breeder enabling (both of which you may be right about) and only tangentially involves Barbaro’s breakdown (which you may not be right about, i.e., the “most likely” due to the “close contact” theory). I do agree with you that the distances should not be messed with and that purse increases would contribute to more entries (provided Pletcher doesn’t wind up training all 3YO with TC potential).

I certainly don’t advocate a knee-jerk reaction to the situation or even a permanent change if the anticipated benefits are not realized. The problem I am trying to address is that of making racing more entertaining to existing enthusiasts and to attract new ones to replace OCFs like myself who are generally more likely to bemoan the loss of tradition and make unfavorable comparisons with champions of old.

BTW, not to bash my beloved Secretariat, but didn’t his early breeding difficulties result in his becoming a poster horse for excessive steroid use? Is it possible that Slew and Affirmed were also products of similar veterinary programs? (Yes, I’m aware that Slew was a giant in the breeding shed unlike those other two TC winners.) Whenever I see Bary Bonds or Mark Maguire, I also think of Secretariat as all always struck me as having muscles on their muscles.

And even though I personally don’t believe Barbaro’s injury had anything to do with TC spacing, I have no objection to its being used to justify such a change because at least it would give the appearance to those turned off by it that racing is trying to address the problem at the highest levels. It isn’t important whether either or neither of us is right, only that racing, like government, be willing to experiment to find a better way to treat bettors as well as horses.

Chill, my worthy opponent.

[Bruddah]

that very special horses (TC winners) come along, but very seldom? Why do we have individuals willing to change the requirements, when one doesn't come along, every few years. Yes, today the sport would benefit from such a feat. Let Nature run it's course. Another great one will come along someday.

In the 1970's it happened 3 times. Before that, it was another 25 years approx. Big deal, we have had 3 TC winners in approx. 60yrs. Seems about right to me. NO NEED TO CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS! Leave it alone and let Nature take it's course. Then we all will be able to celebrate a real Champion. :jump:

[Valuist]

Don't change anything. Make it easier and the accomplishment would be tarnished. Give or take a foot or two, we came very close to having two Triple Crown winners since 1998.

[dccprez]

I wouldn't care if they spaced the Preakness three weeks from the Derby.

Understand that I don't WANT them to, but I wouldn't care.

Nor do I think that adding an extra week to the mix would "tarnish" the feat or lessen the accomplishment much at all.

Times change, things change. There seems to be a strong contingent of posters and others "in the know" about racing that feel very strongly that the breed has changed/lessened. So change the spacing if - BIG "if" - it would help the animals.

It's not as if anyone out here would stop watching - or wagering - just becuase they added 7 lousy days to the mix.

[kenwoodallpromos]

You are correct that owners and trainers should be the decision makers on the scheduling their horses can handle- and each track makes trainers responsible. But consider this-
tracks still give track vets the last word and do drug testing because 100% of trainers do not always follow what is best.
The TC races as far as I know are one special case because of the combined closeness and distance.
All TC entries can be required to get a battery of ultasound, x-ray, and nuclear scan testing on all four legs prior to raceday. Why would anyone object to that?

[Jeff P]

We haven't seen a Triple Crown winner in a really long time. So what?

When I look back at recent history I see quite a few horses that came really close: Silver Charm, Real Quiet, Charismatic, Smarty Jones, and Afleet Alex. Given a little racing luck, is it not too much of a stretch that all five might have been Triple Crown winners?

What if Touch Gold had not fired that day and had not been able to run down Silver Charm? What if Kent Desormeaux had been a little more patient on Real Quiet and/or decided to ride him all the way to the wire? What if Charismatic's injury had come after the wire in the Belmont instead of before? What if Stuart Elliott had decided to let Jerry Bailey go in front of him and then moved Smarty Jones later instead of earlier? What if Jeremy Rose had kept Afleet Alex a little further off of those fast fractions when that Derby pace meltdown occurred?

Suppose for a second that all five had actually won the Triple Crown. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to realize how close it came to actually happening that way.

If all five had won, is there any chance that what we'd be reading about today is that our sport has been cheapened somehow and that we need to figure out a way (maybe make the Derby winner carry 129 lbs in the Belmont?) to make things harder so that the Triple Crown isn't such an easy thing to win?

Such suggestions would be scoffed at and rightly so. Don't those same reasons apply here?

Triple Crown winners are revered and hold a special place in racing history for us because they are so rare. For five weeks and three races a three year old has to be perfect. One aspect of perfection is what we sometimes refer to as racing luck. Every Triple Crown winner that I can think of - with the possible exception of Secretariat - has certainly been the beneficiary of racing luck to one degree or another in one or more of its Triple Crown races.

I'm not convinced anything is really broken here . Please, don't try to fix it.

-jp

.

[Indulto]

If all five had won, is there any chance that what we'd be reading about today is that our sport has been cheapened somehow and that we need to figure out a way (maybe make the Derby winner carry 129 lbs in the Belmont?) to make things harder so that the Triple Crown isn't such an easy thing to win?

Such suggestions would be scoffed at and rightly so. Don't those same reasons apply here?

Triple Crown winners are revered and hold a special place in racing history for us because they are so rare. For five weeks and three races a three year old has to be perfect. One aspect of perfection is what we sometimes refer to as racing luck. Every Triple Crown winner that I can think of - with the possible exception of Secretariat - has certainly been the beneficiary of racing luck to one degree or another in one or more of its Triple Crown races.

I'm not convinced anything is really broken here . Please, don't try to fix it.JP,
You are very persuasive as usual. As another proponent of the “don’t fix what ain’t broken” school of thought, I agree with you completely. As an advocate of both the “nothing is so bad it can’t get worse” and “evolution is preferable to revolution (and faith-based alternatives)” approaches, however, it doesn’t seem wrong to explore enhancements that might improve racing’s product, viability, and popularity.

Permit me to expand your eloquent succinctness as follows: “For five weeks and three races [of demanding distance and spacing seldom attempted before or after] a three year old has to be perfect.”

Change of some kind may be necessary if we are ever to see another TC winner, or even full TC participants substantially active and productive beyond those races. If Barbaro's legacy is that more trainers will follow the path of longer rest prior to the Derby, then that might be sufficient. At least the myth of traditional Derby prep participation was shattered as surely as his foot. One can only hope that more extensive examination of horses breaking through the starting gate will also be a part of that legacy as well as planning for the unexpected in TV coverage.

[TommyCh]

You're right, Indulto, a fairly profound change is already upon us. These horses are getting more rest in the TC prep season, and Barbaro was an extreme example. And while this rest may be good for a TC attempt, what does it do to the experience level of the horse? Is there any way Barbaro might have avoided the trouble if he had had one or two more bad trips under his saddle? But no, the TC spacing should not be changed. And yes it would be less of an accomplishment to win these three races on a more spaced out schedule. The argument that "we need" a Triple Crown winner amuses me. While I question the standards in many areas of society in general, tweaking the rules to make a TC happen would be very distasteful--yet it seems VERY American. It's like everyone saying Karl Malone and John Stockton "deserved" an NBA title. Well, they had a couple of chances and didn't get it done. You win, and then you have earned it and you deserve it, but not until then. But that doesn't mean I don't think he was a very good basketball player, or that I will forget it. I won't forget Funny Cide or Smarty Jones or Afleet Alex, either. Thoroughbred horse racing might be one of the top two or three embedded traditions in the history of this country and I think it outdoes baseball in tradition by a mile, or maybe a mile-and-a-half. :D Baseball has been ruined! Man, let's not change the Triple Crown.

[Indulto]

You're right, Indulto …Now there’s a first for this board.:D These horses are getting more rest in the TC prep season, and Barbaro was an extreme example. And while this rest may be good for a TC attempt, what does it do to the experience level of the horse? Is there any way Barbaro might have avoided the trouble if he had had one or two more bad trips under his saddle?Barbaro had already faced more horses per race than any other Preakness entrant. What previous adversity could possibly have prepared him for the tragedy he encountered?Thoroughbred horse racing might be one of the top two or three embedded traditions in the history of this country and I think it outdoes baseball in tradition by a mile, or maybe a mile-and-a-half.The only racing traditions I cherish are 1) Grade I Handicaps are better than weight-for-age stakes to establish championship credentials for older horses, and 2) three demanding races of specific distance and surface are used to establish the speed and stamina of a 3YO before they compete against older horses.

My objective is to see all such races filled to capacity with truly competitive entries. IMO records are made to be broken, innovation adds interest and excitement, and incentives should accompany penalties in modifying behavior.Baseball has been ruined! Man, let's not change the Triple Crown.Another perfectly legitimate opinion, but are hitters less capable because no-one has batted .400 since Ted Williams, or are they now facing stronger pitching by more athletic players throughout the course of a game. Does it have anything to do with playing at night more, or longer seasons?

Everything in life changes at some time or another, and unwillingness to consider potential changes and/or debate the merits thereof, is a problem that is not limited to racing. BTW wasn't the Breeder's Cup an example of experimentation with a positive result?

[KingChas]

Bruddah "that very special horses (TC winners) come along, but very seldom? Why do we have individuals willing to change the requirements, when one doesn't come along, every few years. Yes, today the sport would benefit from such a feat. Let Nature run it's course. Another great one will come along someday."


Right on Bruddah.

The funny thing about this is what if they change this (spacing..etc)in the TC races and it produces five consecutive TC winners in its 1st five inaugural years?..OOP's.... :lol:

[Indulto]

The funny thing about this is what if they change this (spacing..etc)in the TC races and it produces five consecutive TC winners in its 1st five inaugural years?..OOP's.... :lol: KC,
What if you're right, and one year we get an Affirmed /Alydar rivalry in the process -- would that be bad for racing?

We got Seattle Slew and Affirmed back to back, and Spectacular Bid almost made it 3 for 3. Weren't all of them 2YO champs as well just like Secretariat? Is it possible that the Breeders' Cup, -- successful innovation though it is -- has somehow skewed the handling of 2YOs in some way to prevent successful Triple Crown bids?

If widening TC spacing actually does have the intended effect of increasing field size and competition by allowing more Derby and Preakness contestants to move on to the next leg, then it just might take a better horse to win it.

Suppose TC interest, handle, and attendance don't increase as anticipated, but the number of post-TC starts among TC contestants increases or more 3YOs become HOY, would the experiment be considered a failure?

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Suppose TC interest, handle, and attendance don't increase as anticipated, but the number of post-TC starts among TC contestants increases or more 3YOs become HOY, would the experiment be considered a failure?"
The major sport that has tradition for tradition's sake is baseball with stagnant writers, no celebrating allowed when Ruth is beat as alltime lefthanded HR king, and no DH in the Natl league- and as you know, it is being left in the dust by sports more willing to change- car racing, with fast changes every year for speed, safety AND keeping competition; basketball, with highschoolers injecting youth and slam dunking and hanging from the rim legal to the point of allstar competition; football, with quarterback protection and instant replay.
And then we have horseracing, where anyone overt 30% wins is considered by old farts to be juicing in the face of multi-NTRA proven studys; extended arguments over polyturf who is well proven to be much safer; and and agreeing that the breed is weaker but not agreeing as to why, but insisting that having to run possibly the ONLY 1 1/2 mile graded dirt stakes left on 3 weeks rest proves something!
If you want to prove the Ky Derby winner is a true TC Champion, spread all 3 TC races out so you have 20 competing in the Preakness instead of only 5 coninuing on from the Ky Derby!! Now the 2-leg winners are the only ones not getting 5 weeks rest going into the Belmont! I'm not surprised we have not had anyone win the 3rd leg for decades!!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Of the 20 from this year's Kentucky Derby. only 3 ran in and only 2 completed the Preakness according to the media!

[KingChas]

KC,
What if you're right, and one year we get an Affirmed /Alydar rivalry in the process -- would that be bad for racing?


What makes you think we wouldn't get a rivalry as above without changing the TC spacing?.Is it a must that we have a TC winner immediately?History in time repeats itself "in time= ?".Our problem is impatience.I'm old school as you can see.I wan't the horse to earn that crown.As the others did.In closing,I could live with one more week before the Preakness but anything more drastic than that would tarnish the TC winner.(IMHO) ;)

PS; Why are new baseball stadiums being built with less seats?
Because,the changes they have made-shorter fences,juiced bats,balls,and players have all played a roll in tarnishing their game.

[the little guy]

If they change the TC it is no longer the TC....period. To change it to somehow increase interest in non-fans, and like or not those that pour into Belmont hoping for a TC winner will NOT become fans should they see one, is such a poor idea it feels like only a matter of time before the disfunctional family known as " the racing industry " embraces it.

[KingChas]

To change it to somehow increase interest in non-fans.

Bringing in the youth as fans to the game is a joke.With onlinepoker,illegal (sic) sports betting.. etc.Never happen.Horsepeople as us are as special as a TC winner.It's in the genes :D

With the major developement of all open land and the rules set on public parks.To increase attendance the racing industry should just advertise....."Want to party in the park legally for a day-just BYOB and party cheap. Bet your lottery or house number and get totally wasted." :eek:

Do you think these kids in the infield at the big races know squat or care about horseracing?

[Indulto]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
And then we have horseracing, where anyone overt 30% wins is considered by old farts to be juicing in the face of multi-NTRA proven studys; extended arguments over polyturf who is well proven to be much safer; and and agreeing that the breed is weaker but not agreeing as to why, but insisting that having to run possibly the ONLY 1 1/2 mile graded dirt stakes left on 3 weeks rest proves something!
If you want to prove the Ky Derby winner is a true TC Champion, spread all 3 TC races out so you have 20 competing in the Preakness instead of only 5 coninuing on from the Ky Derby!! Now the 2-leg winners are the only ones not getting 5 weeks rest going into the Belmont! I'm not surprised we have not had anyone win the 3rd leg for decades!!KW,
Welcome aboard. I also bemoan the loss of 1-1/2m dirt races like the JCGC when it was part of the NY handicap TC. I also seem to remember the Brooklyn being run at 12f.Originally posted by KingChas
What makes you think we wouldn't get a rivalry as above without changing the TC spacing?.Is it a must that we have a TC winner immediately?History in time repeats itself "in time= ?".Our problem is impatience.I'm old school as you can see.I wan't the horse to earn that crown.As the others did.In closing,I could live with one more week before the Preakness but anything more drastic than that would tarnish the TC winner.(IMHO) ;)KC,
Do I detect some movement toward improvement?Horsepeople as us are as special as a TC winner.It's in the genes :DI agree. That’s why we’re here. Do you think these kids in the infield at the big races know squat or care about horseracing?Do you think they stumbled in there by mistake? ;)

[Indulto]

Originally posted by the little guy
If they change the TC it is no longer the TC....period. To change it to somehow increase interest in non-fans, and like or not those that pour into Belmont hoping for a TC winner will NOT become fans should they see one, is such a poor idea it feels like only a matter of time before the disfunctional family known as " the racing industry " embraces it.tlg,
Doesn’t suggesting that people pouring into Belmont hoping for a TC winner are not ALREADY fans demonstrate dysfunctional, if not disingenuous behavior?

Enlighten me, oh elite one, as to exactly how a would-be racing fan might prove himself worthy of your inclusion?

[kenwoodallpromos]

45 horses havbe won 2 legs- and the vast majority finished ITM in whichever 3rd leg they lost- including 2005 Afleet Alex.
Foal crops were 1,000+ to 10,000 through the years and the best of the best seem to rise to near the top including the last few years.
Maybe TLG has a good point, but I say if not spead out more, at least require route graded stakes ITM for the Ky Derby and eliminate the rabbits! I do not mind at all seeing slowing, less taxing fractions.
SInce 9 TC champs won in the 19 years between 1935-1948, and 1973-1978 and the only other ones were 1919 and 1930, does anyone know a reason why those 2 time periods?

[PaceAdvantage]

Enlighten me, oh elite one, as to exactly how a would-be racing fan might prove himself worthy of your inclusion?

Seriously, are you just begging for another fight? What's with this? No need for this kind of response. Nothing in tlg's post warranted such a reply.

Stop carrying grudges from one thread to another. It serves absolutely no purpose.