Secretariat

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

So in summary, everyone gets a trophy/gets to cheer a meaningless "Triple Crown" winner every year. Maybe they can also hand out free Hot Pockets to go with the mint juleps.

 

No not at all... There would be many years without a trophy. What I am saying is hold the races for the owners that want to challlenge the test in a fair and sportsmanlike way... Like they used to.

 

Anyway... By the end of the second race, if the first race winner wasn't hurt or dropped out, we would know if there was a chance @ a winner.

 

Again... Just for owners and horses that want to take the challenge fair and on the square.

 

Derby, Preakness, and Belmont can do their own thing... Or one of them (or more) can join the consortium...

[OGTEleven]

No not at all... There would be many years without a trophy. What I am saying is hold the races for the owners that want to challlenge the test in a fair and sportsmanlike way... Like they used to.

 

Anyway... By the end of the second race, if the first race winner wasn't hurt or dropped out, we would know if there was a chance @ a winner.

 

Again... Just for owners and horses that want to take the challenge fair and on the square.

 

Derby, Preakness, and Belmont can do their own thing... Or one of them (or more) can join the consortium...

 

I'm pretty sure the reason that hasn't been tried before is because it is a stupid idea.

 

How could you ever force the losing horses from the first leg to compete in the second? The third?

 

How does each race build its own status as a Grade 1 race?

Edited June 11, 2014 by OGTEleven

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

How could you ever force the losing horses from the first leg to compete in the second? The third?

 

 

You don't. There's still a payout. I think TC cited that Citation (1948) only faced 15 horses total in his Triple Crown winning campaign. Secretariat only raced against 4 other horses in his Belmont. He only went up against 4 horses? Yep...

[bbb]

We are beating a dead horse!

[ExiledInIllinois]

We are beating a dead horse!

 

LoL... K... I will be done. ;-)

[OGTEleven]

You don't. There's still a payout. I think TC cited that Citation (1948) only faced 15 horses total in his Triple Crown winning campaign. Secretariat only raced against 4 other horses in his Belmont. He only went up against 4 horses? Yep...

 

No offense but this post and your others before it show that you know very little about horse racing, which probably means your ideas to improve it have little merit. The suggestion that Secretariat won because he had it easy is stupefying. I would categorize Sham as significantly better than Chrome and I think very few would argue. Still, that is pretty meaningless because Secretariat's Belmont crushed everything before or after it. Bob Beamon times 10.

 

If there were a thread about cricket I would refrain from telling everyone how to improve the game.

[tomato can]

I have no desire to go back through 40 years of fields with 3 races each year and build some kind of chart for 120 races including new shooters and horses who ran all 3. I've watched these races for over thirty years and I know how things have gone. Secretariat had to beat fewer horses because he scared off the rest. His Belmont validated that fear. It was 20 lengths bettter than any race ever run at a mile and a half in history. It would not have mattered if there were nine fresh horses in that race that day. If anyone can't see that I don't know what more to say.

 

There is no graded stakes of any sort which requires a horse had run in a prescribed previous race. The grading process looks at race history to determine its 1, 2, 3 or ungraded status. These grades are changed on a regular basis. With fields of 6 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont there would be no justification for these races remaining Grade 1 for long. The entire aura of the TC would disintegrate. I want to repeat that this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. There are many, many reasons beyond the ones I have already mentioned.

 

I remember a horse that would be considered a fresh horse by the standards laid oout in this thread and by Coburn. I have linked the Youtube of his Belmont.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDuajNdfTek

 

He had not run in the Derby or the Preakness. So he was fresh, right? WRONG (that is a little throwback for some of the old timers). The Belmont was run on a Saturday. On Monday of that same week, Cielo had beaten older horses at one mile in the Grade 1 Met Mile. He was a 3 year old beating older horses and then running the Belmont 5 days later. This set up Conquistador Cielo as one of the most intriguing stallion prospects in history and paid the owner handsomely (FWIW he turned out to be just an above average sire). By Coburn's ridiculous new set of standards, he would have been inelgible for the Belmont because he would have been considered fresh and the owner would have forfeited his hadsome ROI.

 

That was actually a pretty interesting year. The Derby winner, Gato Del Sol sat out the Preakness because there was a heavy favorite by the name of Linkage. Linkage was defeated in the Preakness by a horse name Aloma's Ruler. Later in the year I attended the Travers which featured all 3 of the TC race winners. Guess who won? None of them. Races are individual and need to stay that way. The Triple Crown links these three races in an unoffical manner only. It comes off as one event due to the history and the hype. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it as much as the next guy, but officially making it one event would be a huge mistake.

 

 

 

Lets not make it appear as if he had been racing all along. Conquistador Cielo had given warning that he was something special when he was clearly the best 2-year-old in New York until he fractured a small bone in his shin. That injury laid him up from last August until February the following year. He ran well in two allowance races in Florida in February winning the second by four lengths but reinjured his shins and was again sidelined, until May 8. I would say he was relatively fresh since injuries prevented him from running in the derby and the preakness. Initially his trainer who I believe won like 5 Belmonts in a row had no intentions of racing him but the horse came out of that grade 1 Met Mile race so well he rolled the dice a few days before the Belmont an entered knowing his horse had not really been tested and was definitely fresher than the rest of the field. It was a very low turn out for the race only like 40,000 fans showed and the track was in deplorable conditons after a ton of rain.

[tomato can]

 

As a point of clarification the original goal was to have Tonalist pointed toward the Derby but a sickness prevented that. Are people really arguing that the same sickness should have disqualified him from the Belmont?

 

 

Would a brave Evans have run a sick Tonalist in the Derby and risk the horse's life?

 

The linked article, written just before the Belmont, references a lot factors about the dearth of TC winners. The writer spoke to a lot of people that know a thing or two. Not one of them mentioned new shooters. Why? Because the races are individual races and placing weird restrictions on them because of the hot pockets crowd would be a profound disservice to the sport.

 

Tonalist could not have run in the Derby even if owner Robert Evans and trainer Christophe Clement wanted him to. Under the points system used to qualify for the Derby, Tonalist wasn't even close to making that field.

 

Most trainers, owners, and jockeys have clearly stated that the time line for the triple crown races is not healthy for young horses yet they still run them....I dont believe a little sickness would have derailed the horse up to this point, a major injury of some sort yes.

 

Victor Espinoza was asked about the TC prior to the race and he said its almost impossible today they way its set up for so many fresher horses to enter the race. I'd say he knows a thing or two.

[tomato can]

You talk tradition, but have no desire going back 40 years or more? You want to start @ 30 when all the BS started. No cherry picking please.

 

You gotta be kidding that they were scared of Secretariat. They were all in the game. Nobody would have dreamed of putting a fresh horse in due to the backlash. It was a different era... More honor amongst the kings.

 

I don't think anybody is saying make it one event. At least to an extent, make it attainable like it used to be. Put the honor back into the loosely constructed trio or don't even offer a trophy for it. Right now it is completly unattainable... It has been that way for the last 35 years... Coincidence you have only been watching for the last 30? The BS started 35 years... Funny how Tonalist owner's daddy owned Pleasant Colony (1980) and was one of the first of 12 to get boned out of the Triple Crown. What's he embracing? The spoiler role to avenge his daddy.

 

You seen the buzz created by Cali Chrome... It is good for racing... Unfortunately, the sport is declining because owner's game the races for their own self interest. Gee, that's a shock.

 

That's all that I am saying. Why even have a Triple Crown @ all if all there are is spoilers and no honor among the kings. It is a sport of kings like you said. Time to tie up King John and sign the Magna Carta. The kings will still have power.

 

;-P

 

 

People may say the Triple Crown "has always been that way". But in actuality with today's advancements in breeding, conditioning and veterinary medicine standards, the competition is far more fit and race ready to upset a horse that has been grinding it out during the previous five weeks. So yes only a super, super, super horse would be able to overcome this disadvantage. Until then the opportunist will continue to be the spoiler unless the all or nothing (qualify with points for all events) is instituted. People are saying California Chrome didn't have it, have it to do what? Beat 8 horses who were somewhere sleeping while he was out running?

 

 

Horse racing isn't only about the money! Nor is it only about false manners. We probably wouldn't want to know why there were so many triple crowns in the '70s, and why there have been none since, but the horses are probably better for it.

Edited June 11, 2014 by tomato can

[OGTEleven]

Tonalist could not have run in the Derby even if owner Robert Evans and trainer Christophe Clement wanted him to. Under the points system used to qualify for the Derby, Tonalist wasn't even close to making that field.

 

Most trainers, owners, and jockeys have clearly stated that the time line for the triple crown races is not healthy for young horses yet they still run them....I dont believe a little sickness would have derailed the horse up to this point, a major injury of some sort yes.

 

Victor Espinoza was asked about the TC prior to the race and he said its almost impossible today they way its set up for so many fresher horses to enter the race. I'd say he knows a thing or two.

 

Tonalist missed the opportunity to run in the Florida Derby (or perhaps another prep race) due to his sickness. Clearly he is a good enough horse to be running in TC races but under Coburn's ridiculous (just give it to 'em) idea, Clement would have either had to push a sick horse to a prep or forfeit running in a race for which he knew he could have Tonalist ready. And your belief about "a little sickness" is inaccurate. Horses are very often scratched from prominent races and have their training delayed for weeks due to coughs and slight fevers. Clement absolutely did the right thing for the horse.

 

I am not a huge Andrew Beyer fan but here is his article, partially on the subject.

 

No such idea has occurred to anybody else in the history of horse racing.

 

I think the quote above pretty much sums things up.

 

As for Espinoza's opinion of the situation you'll pardon me if I take it with a grain of salt. I can't find the article but I read one which quoted Espinoza as saying that if CC did win the Triple Crown he would have to be considered the greatest horse of all time. I'm guessing that is the same article you referenced and ran Wed or Thu or Belmont week. Don't you think that undermines his credibility just a bit?

 

 

 

People may say the Triple Crown "has always been that way". But in actuality with today's advancements in breeding, conditioning and veterinary medicine standards, the competition is far more fit and race ready to upset a horse that has been grinding it out during the previous five weeks. So yes only a super, super, super horse would be able to overcome this disadvantage. Until then the opportunist will continue to be the spoiler unless the all or nothing (qualify with points for all events) is instituted. People are saying California Chrome didn't have it, have it to do what? Beat 8 horses who were somewhere sleeping while he was out running?

 

 

Horse racing isn't only about the money! Nor is it only about false manners. We probably wouldn't want to know why there were so many triple crowns in the '70s, and why there have been none since, but the horses are probably better for it.

 

I partially agree but the part you leave out is that for about three decades now, North American breeding has been focused more on speed and less on stamina. I think Lucky Pulpit is an interesting mid-tier sire for a few reasons, but I think I am accurate in stating that he never won past 5-1/2 Furlongs. This trend is most certainly a determining factor in the lack of a TC winner. It is not everything, but it is a factor. Although primarily bred for grass I would not be at all surprised to see the next TC winner come from a European sire line. A turf sire occasionally gets a great dirt offspring and it is bound to happen at some point that a prominent European or Middle Eastern outfit sees the opportunity and grabs it.

 

Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced (if that is what you just did) is not well founded in my opinion.

 

Lets not make it appear as if he had been racing all along. Conquistador Cielo had given warning that he was something special when he was clearly the best 2-year-old in New York until he fractured a small bone in his shin. That injury laid him up from last August until February the following year. He ran well in two allowance races in Florida in February winning the second by four lengths but reinjured his shins and was again sidelined, until May 8. I would say he was relatively fresh since injuries prevented him from running in the derby and the preakness. Initially his trainer who I believe won like 5 Belmonts in a row had no intentions of racing him but the horse came out of that grade 1 Met Mile race so well he rolled the dice a few days before the Belmont an entered knowing his horse had not really been tested and was definitely fresher than the rest of the field. It was a very low turn out for the race only like 40,000 fans showed and the track was in deplorable conditons after a ton of rain.

 

 

Well, Cielo had two races under his belt in May where his most prominent rivals Aloma's Ruler and Gato Del Sol each had only one, but that really isn't the point. You already made my point. Woody Stephens, who in fact did win 5 Belmonts in a row (you say that like it is a bad thing) did not push Cielo into the earlier races. Some may think this was cowardly because they don't get their Triple Crown winner sponsored by Hot Pockets, but to have run him would have been cruel.

 

But let's go back to 1982 and slap Coburn's restrictions on the Belmont. Taking the horses that ran in the Derby and the Preakness and entered the Belmont would have given the 1982 Belmont Stake a whopping field size of ZERO. Great plan.

 

If you assume that the runners in the first two would have stayed the course due to their advantage the field would have been Laser Light, Bold Style and Reinvested. I think we did a little better getting to see Cielo.

 

Instituting Coburn's plan would make both the Preakness and the Belmont restricted stakes races. As I'm sure you're aware, that is a technical term in racing, not just a description. Restricted Stakes are not graded stakes by definition. With fields of zero or three good luck in keeping the ungraded Belmont a prominent American race.

[KD in CA]

We also need to change the rules for golf and tennis so "fresh players" can't steal anyone's Grand Slam. No more showing up at the British Open in July if you didn't compete in the Masters. Do you realize how long it's been since we had a GS winner in either of those two sports?

 

Something must be done!

[OGTEleven]

We also need to change the rules for golf and tennis so "fresh players" can't steal anyone's Grand Slam. No more showing up at the British Open in July if you didn't compete in the Masters. Do you realize how long it's been since we had a GS winner in either of those two sports?

 

Something must be done!

 

Can we still consider them great achievements?

[bbb]

We also need to change the rules for golf and tennis so "fresh players" can't steal anyone's Grand Slam. No more showing up at the British Open in July if you didn't compete in the Masters. Do you realize how long it's been since we had a GS winner in either of those two sports?

 

Something must be done!

 

This is not a good example. A good example would be calling the Boston, NY and Chicago marathons the triple crown, and then running them every 2 weeks.

 

A fresh golfer is rusty. Nothing else.

[ExiledInIllinois]

This is not a good example. A good example would be calling the Boston, NY and Chicago marathons the triple crown, and then running them every 2 weeks.

 

A fresh golfer is rusty. Nothing else.

 

And they seed them as they are ranked in the world. Golf, they have to qualify for the final rounds. No? It isn't just pay money and get in.

[tomato can]

Tonalist missed the opportunity to run in the Florida Derby (or perhaps another prep race) due to his sickness. Clearly he is a good enough horse to be running in TC races but under Coburn's ridiculous (just give it to 'em) idea, Clement would have either had to push a sick horse to a prep or forfeit running in a race for which he knew he could have Tonalist ready. And your belief about "a little sickness" is inaccurate. Horses are very often scratched from prominent races and have their training delayed for weeks due to coughs and slight fevers. Clement absolutely did the right thing for the horse.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the quote above pretty much sums things up.

 

As for Espinoza's opinion of the situation you'll pardon me if I take it with a grain of salt. I can't find the article but I read one which quoted Espinoza as saying that if CC did win the Triple Crown he would have to be considered the greatest horse of all time. I'm guessing that is the same article you referenced and ran Wed or Thu or Belmont week. Don't you think that undermines his credibility just a bit?

 

 

 

 

 

I partially agree but the part you leave out is that for about three decades now, North American breeding has been focused more on speed and less on stamina. I think Lucky Pulpit is an interesting mid-tier sire for a few reasons, but I think I am accurate in stating that he never won past 5-1/2 Furlongs. This trend is most certainly a determining factor in the lack of a TC winner. It is not everything, but it is a factor. Although primarily bred for grass I would not be at all surprised to see the next TC winner come from a European sire line. A turf sire occasionally gets a great dirt offspring and it is bound to happen at some point that a prominent European or Middle Eastern outfit sees the opportunity and grabs it.

 

Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced (if that is what you just did) is not well founded in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

Well, Cielo had two races under his belt in May where his most prominent rivals Aloma's Ruler and Gato Del Sol each had only one, but that really isn't the point. You already made my point. Woody Stephens, who in fact did win 5 Belmonts in a row (you say that like it is a bad thing) did not push Cielo into the earlier races. Some may think this was cowardly because they don't get their Triple Crown winner sponsored by Hot Pockets, but to have run him would have been cruel.

 

But let's go back to 1982 and slap Coburn's restrictions on the Belmont. Taking the horses that ran in the Derby and the Preakness and entered the Belmont would have given the 1982 Belmont Stake a whopping field size of ZERO. Great plan.

 

If you assume that the runners in the first two would have stayed the course due to their advantage the field would have been Laser Light, Bold Style and Reinvested. I think we did a little better getting to see Cielo.

 

Instituting Coburn's plan would make both the Preakness and the Belmont restricted stakes races. As I'm sure you're aware, that is a technical term in racing, not just a description. Restricted Stakes are not graded stakes by definition. With fields of zero or three good luck in keeping the ungraded Belmont a prominent American race.

 

Why do you think they didn't race in the Preakness? He was being pointed towards the derby and sickness caused him to not be eligible. You have a top caliber horse who you had every intent of racing in the big ones. They could have easily skipped The Peter Pan on May 10th and entered the Preakness on May 17th.

 

That's the article I was referring to. I have no problem if you take Espinoza comments with a grain of salt. I take took them at face value. He knows a lot has changed from years past going into these 3 races.

 

No I was not Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced. But we all know that trainers pushing the envelope when it comes to these races is and has been a big problem from milk-shaking, blood doping, and use of epogen to gain an unfair edge.

 

No knock on Woody. He made a gutsy call to run Cielo. I still believe that he was a pretty fresh horses not having to mix it up in the derby and preakness. Cielo was a very nice horse and showed a ton of promise as a 2 year old. He was probably the most talented horse that year. Not to knock his Belmont win but no one was at all excited about that field, some considered it to be a weak field.

 

I am not advocating for Coburns plan because its not going to work. You laid out plenty of reason's why. Many which I agree with. I also agree the whole triple crown thing is over blown. The grand daddy of them all is the Kentucky Derby and Chrome won that convincingly. He followed that up with a nice win the Preakness. I think he should have shut him down at that point. Why risk the health of your horse for a some what meaningless Belmont? He came out of the Preakness nice and healthy. There focus should have been on the Breeders Cup going forward. The Belmont is an anomaly with today's horses being bred for speed.

[OGTEleven]

Why do you think they didn't race in the Preakness? He was being pointed towards the derby and sickness caused him to not be eligible. You have a top caliber horse who you had every intent of racing in the big ones. They could have easily skipped The Peter Pan on May 10th and entered the Preakness on May 17th.

 

He had not run since Feb 22. Is a prep race not reasonable before throwing a horse into a Triple Crown race? Do you really think this was an evil plan to thwart California Chrome who had only won the Derby at this point?

 

 

 

That's the article I was referring to. I have no problem if you take Espinoza comments with a grain of salt. I take took them at face value. He knows a lot has changed from years past going into these 3 races.

 

A lot has changed over the years. If Espinoza had said Chrome would had faced a more difficult trail than Secretariat, I could buy that (maybe), but he said it would prove Chrome was the greatest horse of all time. Evidently he is not aware of Secretariat's accomplishments post Triple Crown, or hasn't heard of John Henry, Forego, Kelso, Count Fleet or many others? Even if he had won Saturday, I could probably think of 50 better horses than his record so far without having to think hard. If he is the greatest of all time I look forward to him easily dispatching Palace Malice and Wise Dan and others later this year. That should be awesome. I hope he goes off 1-9.

 

There are races after the Belmont.

 

No I was not Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced. But we all know that trainers pushing the envelope when it comes to these races is and has been a big problem from milk-shaking, blood doping, and use of epogen to gain an unfair edge.

 

You weren't but you were?

 

No knock on Woody. He made a gutsy call to run Cielo. I still believe that he was a pretty fresh horses not having to mix it up in the derby and preakness. Cielo was a very nice horse and showed a ton of promise as a 2 year old. He was probably the most talented horse that year. Not to knock his Belmont win but no one was at all excited about that field, some considered it to be a weak field.

 

Agreed on the overall quality of the horses in 1982 and even on the status of Cielo in the bigger picture, but the question is whether or not it was somehow unfair that he ran in the Belmont. It wasn't.

 

In fact he ran against what was there in 1982, which included both the Derby and Preakness winners plus the supposed super horse Linkage. 1982 had what it had. There wasn't some big horse missing from that field was there? Runaway Groom?

The race was weak only because 1982 was weak. It had all the 1982 players.

 

 

I am not advocating for Coburns plan because its not going to work. You laid out plenty of reason's why. Many which I agree with. I also agree the whole triple crown thing is over blown. The grand daddy of them all is the Kentucky Derby and Chrome won that convincingly. He followed that up with a nice win the Preakness. I think he should have shut him down at that point. Why risk the health of your horse for a some what meaningless Belmont? He came out of the Preakness nice and healthy. There focus should have been on the Breeders Cup going forward. The Belmont is an anomaly with today's horses being bred for speed.

 

Meaningless Belmont? I don't think overblown is the right word for the Triple Crown. I just recognize it for what it is and isn't. It would still be an important achievement and will be again when it is won again. It could have easily been won on several occasions since the last time. I am 95% convinced that if Easy Goer and Sunday Silence were born a year apart they would have both won. When it is won, I will enjoy all of the hoopla like everyone else, but also realize that the winner will likely be very challenged against older horses in the fall of his 3 year old year. The overblown part of the TC is that it is for 3 year olds. Whoever wins will be deemed the greatest ever by a media with the attention span of a small group of gnats and they will all ask what is wrong when the horse doesn't sweep everything that fall. I hope the next winner is the greatest of all time but I doubt he will be.

 

I'd like to see a horse win the Triple Crown. I would have liked to see Chrome do it. But to win a watered down version by eliminating competitors would have stripped a huge portion of the accomplishment.

 

The Derby is by far the most hyped race of the year and I enjoy that as much as the next guy, but all three races have great tradition and all have their important place in history. I would not go as far as you did in ranking the Derby so far ahead of the other two. It certainly gets some of that status, but all three are Grade 1's and very important. The Derby definitely benefits from being first on the calendar. As a grouping the Triple Crown obviously has its history. IMO, it is one that should not be watered down so that we can get some false thrill.

 

I also think the lack of a TC winner demonstrates the poor judgement behind the industry in general with all the speed breeding. There is a place for speed breeding and always has been, but to me it got way out of hand. The trend has not rendered the Belmont moot, the Belmont helps measure generation versus generation and demonstrates how the pendulum swung too far. The pendulum needs to swing back and the Belmont is one of the strongest pieces of evidence. Like I said earlier, I think it is very possible we could see a European waltz over here and take the TC. I'm not sure how many would try because they care about their prestigious races more. We could see a horse that is turf bred do it; like someone by Kitten's Joy.

Edited June 12, 2014 by OGTEleven

[tomato can]

He had not run since Feb 22. Is a prep race not reasonable before throwing a horse into a Triple Crown race? Do you really think this was an evil plan to thwart California Chrome who had only won the Derby at this point?

 

 

 

 

 

A lot has changed over the years. If Espinoza had said Chrome would had faced a more difficult trail than Secretariat, I could buy that (maybe), but he said it would prove Chrome was the greatest horse of all time. Evidently he is not aware of Secretariat's accomplishments post Triple Crown, or hasn't heard of John Henry, Forego, Kelso, Count Fleet or many others? Even if he had won Saturday, I could probably think of 50 better horses than his record so far without having to think hard. If he is the greatest of all time I look forward to him easily dispatching Palace Malice and Wise Dan and others later this year. That should be awesome. I hope he goes off 1-9.

 

There are races after the Belmont.

 

 

 

You weren't but you were?

 

 

 

Agreed on the overall quality of the horses in 1982 and even on the status of Cielo in the bigger picture, but the question is whether or not it was somehow unfair that he ran in the Belmont. It wasn't.

 

In fact he ran against what was there in 1982, which included both the Derby and Preakness winners plus the supposed super horse Linkage. 1982 had what it had. There wasn't some big horse missing from that field was there? Runaway Groom?

The race was weak only because 1982 was weak. It had all the 1982 players.

 

 

 

Meaningless Belmont? I don't think overblown is the right word for the Triple Crown. I just recognize it for what it is and isn't. It would still be an important achievement and will be again when it is won again. It could have easily been won on several occasions since the last time. I am 95% convinced that if Easy Goer and Sunday Silence were born a year apart they would have both won. When it is won, I will enjoy all of the hoopla like everyone else, but also realize that the winner will likely be very challenged against older horses in the fall of his 3 year old year. The overblown part of the TC is that it is for 3 year olds. Whoever wins will be deemed the greatest ever by a media with the attention span of a small group of gnats and they will all ask what is wrong when the horse doesn't sweep everything that fall. I hope the next winner is the greatest of all time but I doubt he will be.

 

I'd like to see a horse win the Triple Crown. I would have liked to see Chrome do it. But to win a watered down version by eliminating competitors would have stripped a huge portion of the accomplishment.

 

The Derby is by far the most hyped race of the year and I enjoy that as much as the next guy, but all three races have great tradition and all have their important place in history. I would not go as far as you did in ranking the Derby so far ahead of the other two. It certainly gets some of that status, but all three are Grade 1's and very important. The Derby definitely benefits from being first on the calendar. As a grouping the Triple Crown obviously has its history. IMO, it is one that should not be watered down so that we can get some false thrill.

 

I also think the lack of a TC winner demonstrates the poor judgement behind the industry in general with all the speed breeding. There is a place for speed breeding and always has been, but to me it got way out of hand. The trend has not rendered the Belmont moot, the Belmont helps measure generation versus generation and demonstrates how the pendulum swung too far. The pendulum needs to swing back and the Belmont is one of the strongest pieces of evidence. Like I said earlier, I think it is very possible we could see a European waltz over here and take the TC. I'm not sure how many would try because they care about their prestigious races more. We could see a horse that is turf bred do it; like someone by Kitten's Joy.

 

No not at all unreasonable. Outside of Chrome that field for the Preakness wasn't stacked with a bunch of world beaters, right? Clement is a good trainer could have easily had Tonalist prepared for that race despite not having run since Feb 22. If anything he watchd the Derby closely and figured if Chrome is that good and wins our best shot to beat him would be Belmont so in my opinion he took the opportunist route. Thats horse racing go to the gate enough times someone is going to beat you.

 

I agree. Even if he won the TC I would not have ranked he greatest all time. I think we both have seen what we would consider better horses in previous years. I was just pointing out that Espinoza is not wrong in saying that the TC task is slightly more difficult today.

 

I think you get my point. All these performance enhancing drugs and uses of them have gotten more sufisticated and with the amount of money thats on the line more and more are willing to push the envelope to gain that edge.

 

I agree Cielo should have ran in the Belmont just as Tonalist should have. I think Tonalist should have run in the Preakness but he choose not to, and in my opinion they did not want to tackle Chrome just yet. There was no big horse missing from ther 1982 Belmont, Cielo beat who was in front of him and did it easily.

 

The Belmont is becoming meaningless in my opinion because horses simply aren’t asked to run 1 1/2 miles anymore,except at the Belmont. It is the only Grade 1 stakes race in America which goes that long. Plus with the breed changing the way it has the race could begin to lose its luster especially if we do not have a horse that attempting to win the TC. I actually believe Baffert when he says if Silver Charm had seen Touch Gold he would have dug in and possibly held him off. I would also like to see it done again but the chances are really slim for a number of reason we have discussed. I also do not want to see a watered down winner. Its to bad they can not make the TC a series of races, I dont believe there would be a shortage of horses entering. I believe you are correct that a European horse is likely to accomplish the feat before one bred here.

Edited June 13, 2014 by tomato can

[OGTEleven]

No not at all unreasonable. Outside of Chrome that field for the Preakness wasn't stacked with a bunch of world beaters, right? Clement is a good trainer could have easily had Tonalist prepared for that race despite not having run since Feb 22. If anything he watchd the Derby closely and figured if Chrome is that good and wins our best shot to beat him would be Belmont so in my opinion he took the opportunist route. Thats horse racing go to the gate enough times someone is going to beat you.

 

I strongly suspect that Clement mapped out his strategy for getting Tonalist back to the races long before the Kentucky Derby was run. I'm equally convinced he developed this strategy in line with what he thought was best for the horse's health and provided the most likely set of positive outcomes (i.e.. Running well in the Peter Pan and winning the Belmont). It is silly to expect him to adjust his plans after watching the Kentucky Derby so he could be perceived to be more fair in the eyes of some crazy owner of a different horse.

 

 

I think you get my point. All these performance enhancing drugs and uses of them have gotten more sufisticated and with the amount of money thats on the line more and more are willing to push the envelope to gain that edge.

 

I don't dispute that but I fail to see how it relates to Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed.

 

 

 

The Belmont is becoming meaningless in my opinion because horses simply aren’t asked to run 1 1/2 miles anymore,except at the Belmont. It is the only Grade 1 stakes race in America which goes that long. Plus with the breed changing the way it has the race could begin to lose its luster especially if we do not have a horse that attempting to win the TC. I actually believe Baffert when he says if Silver Charm had seen Touch Gold he would have dug in and possibly held him off. I would also like to see it done again but the chances are really slim for a number of reason we have discussed. I also do not want to see a watered down winner. Its to bad they can not make the TC a series of races, I dont believe there would be a shortage of horses entering. I believe you are correct that a European horse is likely to accomplish the feat before one bred here.

 

I think the Belmont actually serves as a tool to demonstrate the harm that has been done to the breed by the last few decades of breeding focused on speed. I don't think it is the Belmont that needs to change, but the breeding. If you carry your theory forward, the Breeder's Cup Dirt mile will be the most prestigious race in America in 25 years. I don't want to see that happen. The pendulum can swing back fairly easily by importing a prominent European sire or two (or 20) over here. I don't see it happening yet though. Losing Animal Kingdom as a sire to Australia was a big blow.

 

I think Baffert could be right about SC and think Smarty Jones' jockey made an error in moving too soon as well. I'm confident there will be another TC winner. You spoke about Rachel's baby the other day. I just saw an article about Cozmic One (another stupid name) who is Zenyatta's baby. He just got sent to Shireffs at Belmont. If they race each other it should be fun but I don't see them a some sort of super horses on mom alone. There is always a lot to prove.

 

As for this year's 3 year olds I see them as an ok crop. It will be interesting to see Honor Code, Top Billing and Shared Belief when they really get a race or two under their belts. I like Tonalist and Medal Count moving forward but the one I think could be the most interesting if and when he matures is Bobby's Kitten. He could be anything. No guarantees at all but his upside is really high.