Funny that the two of the closest Triple Crown misses of recent vintage were Preakness-Belmont winners. A lot of the Derby-Preakness winners never had a chance in the Belmont in hindsight.

Yep.

What's your point?

That's crazy talk.

Speaking of which, I think Rags to Riches might have been able to do it.

"I would guess the Derby trail has been derailing horses for more than just the last 20 years"

What's your point?

By the way, 1992 is 19 years ago.

Not crazy at all, but that was the best grouping of TC races and horses in a while. She would have had her hands full in KY.

Too bad as I liked the horse, but he probably wasn't going to get in the Derby anyway. I would say it's minor, but a Zito horse I like popped a splint twice and has been taken out of training, so who knows.

She wouldn't have won the Triple Crown.

Had she tried - she would have ended up with a goose egg instead of an Oaks-Belmont double.

Probably, KY would have gutted her, that race was brutal on everyone but SS and Hard Spun, Curlin came out OK obviously too.

Right.

I forgot how much you love Street Sense.

I'm a few years short of "old codger" status, but I am old enough to remember when major preps were held two weeks (or less) before the Derby. Go back even a few years before my time, and you're hard-pressed to find a Derby starter whose last pre-Derby run was more than two weeks beforehand.

Today, few horses running the Derby-Preakness double have had previous experience running two demanding races at two-week intervals. I have to wonder if that is a major factor.

Prior to last year though, strong Derby horses had been running excellent Preakness races. They seem to relish the chance.

Yes, but what of the third race, three weeks later?

That one has been a little bit spottier, though a few have run well. Despite the best efforts of their passengers.