Well you asked the rhetorical question Tim to which I know you knew the answer. So I gave you a rhetorical answer.
Todd made an intelligent statement. He said the only horse with an incentive to run in the Preakness was the Derby winner. Noone else wants to beat the **** out of their horse with 3 races in 3 states in 5 weeks. Thats not valid? especially since he just didn't speak out, he was asked specifically by someone what he felt about the fact that not one horse this year will compete in all three legs. I dunno where others find fault in that but i sure don't see any. The fact that he hasnt won a tri crown race yet doesnt make him less of a credible person to answer that question. He gave an honest candid answer. Hell the Sheikh is just outright skipping the Belmont with a horsew ho would have been 1-2 and I don't see anybody bashing him. Quite frankly, he did the right thing. Why beat the hell out of a horse back on three weeks rest with all the races left this year to run in?
Fact is that the "traditionalists" don't own or train horses. real easy to tell someone else what to do with their property. fact is that people no longer believe that running in 3 races that quick is good for a horse. Lets take teh Sheikh, heck he doesnt need money, he doesnt need stud money either!!!! yet he made a choice not to run in the Belmont. Now what does that tell you? It tells me that a guy with no financial pressure at all decided to do what he felt was best for his horse. Obviously others agree with him.