The Preakness Stakes - Page 3 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Smarty Cide · 05-04-2009, 08:03 AM

is it just me or does it seem that the Preakness has lost importance over the past few years it seems like last year and this year no top trainers seem to really care about it as much as they used to...

ezrabrooks · 05-04-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonnyp

in 1996, Grindstone was injured after a derby win and was retired before another race.

however, in 1985, Spend a Buck's connections opted for the Jersey Derby which, at the time, carried a much larger purse and a bonus to a kentucky derby winner than the preakness.

at that time it was believed by the powers that existed in racing, that no one would ever forsake the prestiege of winning the preakness, even with its relatively modest purse, to compete elseware for more money.

this event shocked them into recognizing the reality of a changing mentality and triple crown productions came into being. with its birth came a substantial increase in the purses of the triple crown races so as to offer some bit of assurance this would not happen again.

Thanks Sonny. I do recall the Spend a Buck year (now that you mentioned it). Garden State offerred a 1 or 2 million dollar bonus to a KY/NJ Derby Double...and SAB did it. He skipped the Belmont also. There are probably more if you go on back further.

Ez

ghostyapper · 05-04-2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty Cide

is it just me or does it seem that the Preakness has lost importance over the past few years it seems like last year and this year no top trainers seem to really care about it as much as they used to...

It was always the least prestigious among the jewel's but the distance has grown more over the last 10 or so years. Some of the fields recently have been pathetic. It's all about derby fever so after rushing the horses to get to the derby, there's nothing left 2 weeks later.

OTM Al · 05-04-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miesque

Absolutely agree and I this is the first year in a long, long time where I will not be attending either the Preakness or the Belmont and after yesterday I feel pretty good about having made that decision earlier this spring.

Might want to come to the Belmont. It may turn out to be the race you wanted to see Saturday if the big players can get healthy by then and I think there is a good chance they can. Besides, Rachel is running on the undercard which is worth the price of admission right there

miesque · 05-04-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Might want to come to the Belmont. It may turn out to be the race you wanted to see Saturday if the big players can get healthy by then and I think there is a good chance they can. Besides, Rachel is running on the undercard which is worth the price of admission right there

Unfortunately after my experience at last year's Belmont I have pretty much scratched the Belmont Stakes permanently off my schedule and it would take a very sweet set-up to get me to return on that day.

joanied · 05-04-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miesque

Unfortunately after my experience at last year's Belmont I have pretty much scratched the Belmont Stakes permanently off my schedule and it would take a very sweet set-up to get me to return on that day.

How about Rachel Alexander running in the Acorn

You shouldn't let last years fiasco ruin what could be a fabulous day of racing at Belmont...ya know..."one bad apple"

cj's dad · 05-04-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty Cide

is it just me or does it seem that the Preakness has lost importance over the past few years it seems like last year and this year no top trainers seem to really care about it as much as they used to...

The Preakness is in my opinion the most important of the three ALMOST every year because it is the race which decides IF there will be a chance for a TC winner. Prior to the Derby, all have a TC shot, after the derby just one. And unless that ONE wins, the Belmont is pretty much an afterthought. Just look at the belmont stakes crowds on TC potential days vs. those which had no TC possibility.

lagavulin62 · 05-04-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty Cide

is it just me or does it seem that the Preakness has lost importance over the past few years it seems like last year and this year no top trainers seem to really care about it as much as they used to...

thats another reason I think it would be a wasted opportunity not to run the derby winner in this years preakness, especially when it is known that he is bred to compete in the belmont. on the other hand I realize only fans care about the triple crown, most of those trainers could really care less. in their eyes rest the horse and get a better shot winning the derby and belmont. why chase an almost impossible dream with horses that can barely make it 1 1/4 miles.

joanied · 05-04-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj's dad

The Preakness is in my opinion the most important of the three ALMOST every year because it is the race which decides IF there will be a chance for a TC winner. Prior to the Derby, all have a TC shot, after the derby just one. And unless that ONE wins, the Belmont is pretty much an afterthought. Just look at the belmont stakes crowds on TC potential days vs. those which had no TC possibility.

I agree with this...if the Derby winner doesn't go to the Preakness...then, and only then does it become 'just another stakes race'...and if the Derby winner gets the Preakness...every one is on pins & needles waiting 3 weeks for the Belmont...and IF, MTB wins the Preakness..with the story behind him, being basically another 'blue collar' horse...the folks will come

Hey, cj'sdad....have you seen the videos of MTB's races prior to the Derby...go over to that thread and have a look...pretty good stuff...one interesting thing....Chantal Sutherland rode him twice.

fmolf · 05-04-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relwob Owner

If Papa Clem is 3 to 1 or better, I am betting the ole farm...

i am with you i believe he was the best horse in the derby!

fmolf · 05-04-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Might want to come to the Belmont. It may turn out to be the race you wanted to see Saturday if the big players can get healthy by then and I think there is a good chance they can. Besides, Rachel is running on the undercard which is worth the price of admission right there

i think rachel might beat the boys in the belmont i wish she would run there!....pletcher is gonna run take the points in the preakness....if i were him i would try to slow the pace down so mtb does not get anything to run at.....rail is not gonna be a paved highway either...wet or dry at pimlico!

kyle2227 · 05-04-2009, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmolf

i am with you i believe he was the best horse in the derby!

I agree we are all going to make big money when the favorite runs out big big money. No tc this year.

JPinMaryland · 05-05-2009, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joanied

Hey, cj'sdad....have you seen the videos of MTB's races prior to the Derby...go over to that thread and have a look...pretty good stuff...one interesting thing....Chantal Sutherland rode him twice.

Three times, if I recall.

samyn on the green · 05-05-2009, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPinMaryland

Three times, if I recall.

Nope, Chantal rode him four times winning three consecutive stakes races before running last in the BC JV.

bitter · 05-05-2009, 08:10 AM

just what maryland horse racing needed, a 50-1 shot to win the derby. Its almost a gurantee that sales will slide a little further with the glim hope of a TC winner this year. been going to the preakness the last 10 years, and i can honestly say if it wasn't just to keep the streak in tack, i wouldn't go.

this horse might not win another graded race in his life time