Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
That doesn't prove causality by any means. The reason Kentucky Derby horses do well in the Preakness is because the best three year olds run in the Kentucky Derby. Sure there is the rare occasion where one of the best three year olds doesn't get into the Derby or has to skip the Derby for whatever reason. But in the vast majority of cases the best 3 year olds run in the Derby. So they don't win the Preakness because they ran in the Derby. They win the Preakness because they're the best horses.
|
So why are you arguing the spacing is too hard on them? If they're the best, they can handle it. And judging from the number of close calls, especially when the one running for the TC doesn't win the Belmont, but finishes in the top three, they are handling it.
It's no different than claiming that horses are being ruined by the TC trail. If they can't handle the three races in five weeks, then they weren't very good horses to start with. And, as been pointed out in other threads, the ones that didn't run again after, who ran in all three races and did well, were more likely pulled from the track for the sweet smell of breeding cash than because the horse was ruined. Even in the case of Afleet Alex, who did suffer a fluke injury during the second race (though it had nothing to do with the spacing of the races, of course), at the time of retirement his trainer said he could come back from the injury- he was just worth too much money to wait:
http://seattletimes.com/html/sports/...4_horse02.html