Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cardus

The spacing of the races is unduly hard on the horses, provided that they race in all three races.

All of us are aware that few horses run in all three races now. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but we know that that is true. And the number of starters in all three races is down significantly when comparing the last 10 years to 30 and 40 years ago.

I don't know this is true until I see the actual stats.

What has remained quite consistent, it seems, is that it's to a Preakness starter's advantage to have run in the Derby. Here's an article from 2014 about it:

https://thoroughbredracing.com/artic...ners-preakness

And one from 1998. La plus ça change...

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/14/sports/sp-49712

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I don't know this is true until I see the actual stats.

What has remained quite consistent, it seems, is that it's to a Preakness starter's advantage to have run in the Derby. Here's an article from 2014 about it:

https://thoroughbredracing.com/artic...ners-preakness

And one from 1998. La plus ça change...

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/14/sports/sp-49712

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.

[GenuineRisk]

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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

I don't understand your question. What does one have to do with the other? Just because a horse is the best horse, that in no way implies that he will be able to run a peak race in the Belmont when it would be his third peak race in 5 weeks (not to mention that the third race is 1 1/2 miles), and it in no way implies that he will be able to come out of it unscathed. Even the soundest horses have their limits. If you push a horse too hard, the horse will not hold up. I don't care who the horse is. Every horse has a limit.

I completely disagree with your assertion that most of those horses that were retired after the TC could have come back effectively later on. Afleet Alex had a condylar fracture. It is very unlikely that he could have come back and been the same horse. They tried to bring him back at one point and were forced to pull the plug. As you said, the condylar fracture may have come from the incident in the Preakness. We don't know whether it did or not but it is certainly possible. If it did come from that incident, then I wouldn't blame the TC for the injury.

I was told that Smarty Jones had practically no cartilage left in his ankles. The person who told me is completely credible and was in a position to know. But even if you don't believe him, Dr. Bramlage said the horse needed several months off. Mine That Bird was not the same horse after the TC. I'll Have Another and Bodemeister were done after the Preakness. Those are just a few of the horses off the top of my head. I could probably come up with 10x more over just the last 15 years or so.

Super Saver was done after the Preakness.

They made a huge mistake running Orb in all three races. He was so knocked out both physically and mentally that they sent him out to Fair Hill. It's no secret how much weight that horse lost. After his horrible performance in the Preakness, I don't know why they ran him in the Belmont. Some will say he ran poorly in the Preakness because of the pace. That is silly. Mylute came from even further back than Orb in the Derby. And Mylute ran really well in the Preakness. He ran a credible 3rd and only lost by 2 1/2 lengths. He beat Orb by 7 lengths.

By the way, owners will almost always downplay injuries. If you remember when I'll Have Another was scratched from the Belmont, they claimed he just had some tendonitis. In reality, he had a bowed tendon. You guys seem to think that owners try to exaggerate injuries. It's totally the opposite. They always downplay injuries.

If an owner says that a horse has a minor injury and that the horse could probably come back the next year but they are going to retire him, there is a good chance that they know the horse probably could not come back, or not come back and be the same horse.