Pimlico Needs An Auxiliary Finish Line

[Thomas Roulston]

Pimlico's stretch is 1,152 feet long - 3 feet shorter than Oaklawn, which does use an auxiliary finish line.

Not having an available distance between 6 furlongs and 1 1/16 miles on the dirt must really hurt Pimlico.

So while they're banning Lasix at Pimlico, is it too much to ask of the Stronachs to give us 1-mile dirt races there? And it would also mean that if a 1-mile grass race is taken off the turf, it could be run on the main track at 1 mile instead of 1 1/16 miles.

[Tom]

They only race a couple of weeks every year - and that will soon end,

Why bother?

[Thomas Roulston]

It's down to a couple of weeks every year now?

In that case, why bother even keeping the track open.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

It's down to a couple of weeks every year now?

In that case, why bother even keeping the track open.

The Preakness.

[Thomas Roulston]

I thought they had a fall meeting as well.

And if both Southern California and Northern California can survive with only one track, I suppose that Maryland can too.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

I thought they had a fall meeting as well.

And if both Southern California and Northern California can survive with only one track, I suppose that Maryland can too.

Not any more, been gone for a few years at least.

[Thomas Roulston]

I know it won't happen if the Preakness is moved to Laurel, but if it is moved there the distance should be lengthened to 1 3/8 miles, so as to provide a logical progression between the 1 1/4 miles of the Derby and the 1 1/2 miles of the Belmont.

This will also lead to fewer horses that closed in the Derby but didn't win skipping the Preakness. The extra furlong will make their connections think they can win.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

I know it won't happen if the Preakness is moved to Laurel, but if it is moved there the distance should be lengthened to 1 3/8 miles, so as to provide a logical progression between the 1 1/4 miles of the Derby and the 1 1/2 miles of the Belmont.

This will also lead to fewer horses that closed in the Derby but didn't win skipping the Preakness. The extra furlong will make their connections think they can win.

The Preakness has been run at 1 3/16 or shorter (as short as a mile) for 125 years. Why would you change it now?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by castaway01

The Preakness has been run at 1 3/16 or shorter (as short as a mile) for 125 years. Why would you change it now?

Yeah, (1) it's not changing, (2) 1 3/16 miles is actually a perfect distance to run over a 9 furlong track and (3) even if you did want to change the distance (which you don't), you would actually want to make it shorter so the TC was a greater test of versatility.

[thaskalos]

For a true "test of versatility"...I think the Preakness should be reduced to 7 furlongs.

[stuball]

5 1/2 F on the grass

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

For a true "test of versatility"...I think the Preakness should be reduced to 7 furlongs.

Nahh, it should be left the way it is. It isn't sacrosanct-- Sir Barton's Belmont was 11 furlongs and one TC winner won the Preakness before the Derby. But it's been this way long enough that it won't change.

But I do think the one weakness of the TC is the Preakness is too much like the Derby. Which you can see from the fact that so many Derby winners win the Preakness and a number of Derby EXACTAS have come through in the Preakness as well. If I were designing something from scratch, I probably would make one of the races a sprint.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

I thought they had a fall meeting as well.

Not any longer, but they might have a ceiling "fall" in the grandstand.

[Run Nicholas Run]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

For a true "test of versatility"...I think the Preakness should be reduced to 7 furlongs.

your funnier than Jay Mohr!

[gheuks]

The fall meet was my favorite. Empty infield. You could actually see the races.