Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Exactly.

It's ludicrous, some of the arguments on here, about how it's the time between racing causing the lack of TC winners.

So many times, racing circumstances were what prevented the sweep. Sometimes a better horse came along to deny the Triple Crown (Touch Gold for instance), or really bad race circumstances (Afleet Alex).

Heck, just look at Touch Gold again. I could make a case that with a little luck, he might have won the Triple Crown. He was best in both the Belmont and Preakness, and if my old memory serves me correctly, he didn't run in the Derby because he lacked earnings. I could be mistaken there, but still, he was the best horse in both the Preakness and Belmont.

I recently posted a list of the last twelve or so horses going for the sweep in the Belmont, and things that happened to them that contributed to their losses. All Rupert did was summarily dismiss these things and then spend the next month reiterating that the 2-3 week format was to blame.

For certain, Point Given, Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex and Real Quiet would have won the TC if it were not for jockey shenanigans. I don't even know how that can be countered.

War Emblem and Alysheba I think had legitimate excuses, but I can't say for certain they would have won or not.

Hell, I even think that had Barbaro not broken down out of the gate (nothing to do with race spacing), he'd have completed the sweep, overrated and overhyped Bernardini notwithstanding.

The arguments in favor of spacing are empty and easily beaten with simple logic and reasoning!

How on Earth did Point Given and Afleet Alex manage to win the Preakness and Belmont after running such monster losing races (due to jockey ineptness) in the Derby??????

The best race Smarty Jones ever ran was his lone loss in the Belmont!

All this leads me to the conclusion that some people are hopeless contrarians. I just never thought I'd be seeing Rupert in the starring role of King Glorious in this particular movie.

I'm hardly a contrarian on this issue. It may a be a contrarian point of view on this board, but if you asked practically any trainer, they would agree with me. Why do you think so many horses skip the Preakness? They skip the Preakness because it is a big advantage to have a fresh horse for the Belmont. That has proven to be a very successful strategy. In recent years there have been 6 horses that ran in the Derby who skipped the Preakness and came back and won the Belmont.

With regard to Touch Gold, I agree with you that he was much the best in the Preakness. That hardly means he would have won the TC if he would have run in the Derby. He would have had to win the Derby and then you have to assume that the Derby would not have taken much out of him and that he would have run the same in the Preakness and Belmont as he would have run without running in the Derby.

Point Given was certainly the best horse that year, but I don't think he had a legitimate excuse in the Derby. He ran poorly. I don't know why he didn't fire that day but he didn't. What was his excuse? Sure he was closer to a fast pace than he should have been, but Congaree was even closer to the pace than Point Given and Congaree ended up beating Point Given by 7 lengths. I don't know how a person could watch the Kentucky Derby that year and say that Point Given was the best horse that day. He had no legitimate excuse. If he would have ended up getting beat by a small margin and if he would have outfinished other horses that were close to the pace, then you could make that argument. But that wasn't the case.

I totally disagree with you about Smarty Jones. I don't think the Belmont was anything close to his best race. In fact, I think he regressed by at least 4-5 lengths from the Preakness. What was the problem with the ride? Watch the replay and tell me what he should have done differently at what point. They went the half in :48 3/5, which is reasonable but not lightening fast. Eddington came up outside of Smarty Jones and forced him to move a little sooner than he would have liked to but that is racing. Overall, SJ's trip was reasonable. It wasn't great but it certainly wasn't horrible. He ran his last quarter in :27. If you think that was his best race, I strongly disagree.

What was wrong with Afleet Alex's trip in the Kentucky Derby? It's a 20 horse field. You're practically never going to get a perfect trip. If you get a relatively clean trip, you have to be thrilled. AA had a relatively good trip. He saved ground and waited for room and he got through. After he got through, he got outrun. I don't think he had any real excuse in the Derby.

To say Alysheba had a legitimate excuse in the Belmont is preposterous. He lost by 14 lengths. If he was 2-3 lengths closer to the pace, do you think that would have made up 14 lengths? Granted he did check at the quarter pole after he was hopelessly beaten. If he didn't check, he would have only lost by 10 or 11 lengths.

I don't deny that we will continue to have plenty of horses that will win 2 out of the 3 legs. I'm sure there will continue to be plenty of horses that come close to winning all 3 races. My theory is pretty simple. My theory is that 99% of horses who win those first two legs are going to regress in the Belmont. How much they will regress is the question. All horses are different. Some horses may only regress by a couple of lengths. Others may regress by 5-10 lengths. If a horse is much the best and he only regresses by 2 lengths, he will probably be very competitive in the Belmont.