Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you ask any trainer that has TC experience, they will all tell you that the schedule is a huge issue. If you ask a trainer that doesn't have TC experience, 90% of them will tell you it's a huge issue. I think that guys who are with horses every day and do it for a living may have some idea as to how long it takes horses to recover from races.

As you may have noticed in the article, Asmussen said that if there was more space between races that it would make it easier. That is obvious.

I've stated this before but I really disagree that spacing the races would make it easier. There are several reasons I feel this way.

First, there is almost universal acceptance that the way they breed these horses has changed dramatically. They no longer are the sturdy horses we grew up with but have become a soft, fragile animal. The current training methods only make them softer. As much as I hate to admit it, it's becoming increasingly clear that they need more time between races than horses of the past. I may not necessarily believe this but obviously, many top trainers do. With that in mind, more spaces between the races would probably lead to more of the horses that are considered top horses running back in the Preakness. Each year, you usually have a couple of contenders that can have their Derby efforts tossed because of legitimate excuses that then skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. You also get several that skip the Preakness just because it comes back so close and there is no reason to run back. Palace Malice, Union Rags, Summer Bird, Jazil, Birdstone, and Empire Maker are six that have run in Kentucky, skipped the Preakness, and won the Belmont in the last 11 seasons with Birdstone and Empire Maker both ending TC bids. So my belief is that with more top horses coming back in the Preakness, it makes that a tougher race to win. The same feeling holds true for the Belmont.

The next reason I feel it would be tougher is because it would require the horses to hold their form for a longer period of time. The more time between the races, the more that can go wrong in training and the easier it is to lose their sharpness.

A third reason is one that would be in conjunction with shortening the races. Listen, whether we like it or not, people aren't breeding horses to run 10f+ anymore. I remember once reading that 70% of the races in this country are run at 8f and under and that's what it seems breeders are aiming at. Nobody is trying to breed a Derby winner anymore. They are breeding 8-9f runners and hoping they can just be the best of the bunch and outlast the others to 10f. Look at a horse like California Chrome. The vast majority of the so-called "experts" will tell you that they believe his best distance is probably 9f. The 2yo champ from last year, Shared Belief, just made his return and I bet if you were to ask people what distance they'd prefer to see them match up at, it would be 8.5-9f. You could line up Groovy, Gulch, Very Subtle, Safely Kept, Xtra Heat, Meafara, On the Line, Kona Gold, and Artax and make it a 10f race and three of them will hit the board and one will win. But that is not the best distance for any of them and the best race for that group would be a 6f sprint where all of them can give their best. What I'm getting at is a 9f Derby would be a tougher race to win than a 10f one and a 10f Belmont would be tougher to win than a 12f one. Why? Because the conditions would suit more of the horses and make them legit contenders. It's only logical that the more contenders that fit the conditions, the tougher it is to win.

Some people are set in their ways and will scream tradition and I respect that. But while changing it up will make it different, it won't necessarily make it easier.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I've stated this before but I really disagree that spacing the races would make it easier. There are several reasons I feel this way.

First, there is almost universal acceptance that the way they breed these horses has changed dramatically. They no longer are the sturdy horses we grew up with but have become a soft, fragile animal. The current training methods only make them softer. As much as I hate to admit it, it's becoming increasingly clear that they need more time between races than horses of the past. I may not necessarily believe this but obviously, many top trainers do. With that in mind, more spaces between the races would probably lead to more of the horses that are considered top horses running back in the Preakness. Each year, you usually have a couple of contenders that can have their Derby efforts tossed because of legitimate excuses that then skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. You also get several that skip the Preakness just because it comes back so close and there is no reason to run back. Palace Malice, Union Rags, Summer Bird, Jazil, Birdstone, and Empire Maker are six that have run in Kentucky, skipped the Preakness, and won the Belmont in the last 11 seasons with Birdstone and Empire Maker both ending TC bids. So my belief is that with more top horses coming back in the Preakness, it makes that a tougher race to win. The same feeling holds true for the Belmont.

The next reason I feel it would be tougher is because it would require the horses to hold their form for a longer period of time. The more time between the races, the more that can go wrong in training and the easier it is to lose their sharpness.

A third reason is one that would be in conjunction with shortening the races. Listen, whether we like it or not, people aren't breeding horses to run 10f+ anymore. I remember once reading that 70% of the races in this country are run at 8f and under and that's what it seems breeders are aiming at. Nobody is trying to breed a Derby winner anymore. They are breeding 8-9f runners and hoping they can just be the best of the bunch and outlast the others to 10f. Look at a horse like California Chrome. The vast majority of the so-called "experts" will tell you that they believe his best distance is probably 9f. The 2yo champ from last year, Shared Belief, just made his return and I bet if you were to ask people what distance they'd prefer to see them match up at, it would be 8.5-9f. You could line up Groovy, Gulch, Very Subtle, Safely Kept, Xtra Heat, Meafara, On the Line, Kona Gold, and Artax and make it a 10f race and three of them will hit the board and one will win. But that is not the best distance for any of them and the best race for that group would be a 6f sprint where all of them can give their best. What I'm getting at is a 9f Derby would be a tougher race to win than a 10f one and a 10f Belmont would be tougher to win than a 12f one. Why? Because the conditions would suit more of the horses and make them legit contenders. It's only logical that the more contenders that fit the conditions, the tougher it is to win.

Some people are set in their ways and will scream tradition and I respect that. But while changing it up will make it different, it won't necessarily make it easier.

--Dunbar

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I've stated this before but I really disagree that spacing the races would make it easier. There are several reasons I feel this way.

First, there is almost universal acceptance that the way they breed these horses has changed dramatically. They no longer are the sturdy horses we grew up with but have become a soft, fragile animal. The current training methods only make them softer. As much as I hate to admit it, it's becoming increasingly clear that they need more time between races than horses of the past. I may not necessarily believe this but obviously, many top trainers do. With that in mind, more spaces between the races would probably lead to more of the horses that are considered top horses running back in the Preakness. Each year, you usually have a couple of contenders that can have their Derby efforts tossed because of legitimate excuses that then skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. You also get several that skip the Preakness just because it comes back so close and there is no reason to run back. Palace Malice, Union Rags, Summer Bird, Jazil, Birdstone, and Empire Maker are six that have run in Kentucky, skipped the Preakness, and won the Belmont in the last 11 seasons with Birdstone and Empire Maker both ending TC bids. So my belief is that with more top horses coming back in the Preakness, it makes that a tougher race to win. The same feeling holds true for the Belmont.

The next reason I feel it would be tougher is because it would require the horses to hold their form for a longer period of time. The more time between the races, the more that can go wrong in training and the easier it is to lose their sharpness.

A third reason is one that would be in conjunction with shortening the races. Listen, whether we like it or not, people aren't breeding horses to run 10f+ anymore. I remember once reading that 70% of the races in this country are run at 8f and under and that's what it seems breeders are aiming at. Nobody is trying to breed a Derby winner anymore. They are breeding 8-9f runners and hoping they can just be the best of the bunch and outlast the others to 10f. Look at a horse like California Chrome. The vast majority of the so-called "experts" will tell you that they believe his best distance is probably 9f. The 2yo champ from last year, Shared Belief, just made his return and I bet if you were to ask people what distance they'd prefer to see them match up at, it would be 8.5-9f. You could line up Groovy, Gulch, Very Subtle, Safely Kept, Xtra Heat, Meafara, On the Line, Kona Gold, and Artax and make it a 10f race and three of them will hit the board and one will win. But that is not the best distance for any of them and the best race for that group would be a 6f sprint where all of them can give their best. What I'm getting at is a 9f Derby would be a tougher race to win than a 10f one and a 10f Belmont would be tougher to win than a 12f one. Why? Because the conditions would suit more of the horses and make them legit contenders. It's only logical that the more contenders that fit the conditions, the tougher it is to win.

Some people are set in their ways and will scream tradition and I respect that. But while changing it up will make it different, it won't necessarily make it easier.

You make some excellent points. With regard to what the effect would be if the races were a little shorter, I think it would depend on the year. If it is a year where the horses are pretty closely matched and there is no standout horse, then you may get a different winner in each race (if the races were shorter and there was more time between races). But if it is a year with a standout horse, then I think having shorter races and more time between races would make it much easier for the standout horse to win all 3 legs. I think right now the main thing that gets the standout horse beat in the Belmont is that it is just too tough to get a peak performance going 1 1/2 miles when it would be their 3rd peak performance in 5 weeks.

The current system is kind of a double-edged sword. The distance of these races eliminates a lot of contenders because there simply aren't that many horses out there that can get 1 1/4 miles. But the spacing is the great equalizer (especially when it comes to the Belmont) because after you win those first two race, you're going to be pretty knocked out going into that final leg.

By the way, I'm sure most of you will disagree with me, but of those 6 horses that skipped the Preakness and won the Belmont, I'm not sure a single one of those horses (maybe one) would have won the Belmont had they not skipped the Preakness. I think the key to them winning the Belmont was skipping the Preakness and being fresh for the Belmont. I think it gave them a huge advantage.

[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.

[Conrad]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In another thread, a few people including myself were wondering how long the Triple Crown has been using the present schedule. We all thought it dated back to the 1960s but nobody seemed to know the exact year. The answer is 1969. So only 3 past TC winners did it under this exact schedule.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...-even-tougher/

True, but all Triple Crown winners except one (Citation) did it in 5 weeks or less

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Conrad

True, but all Triple Crown winners except one (Citation) did it in 5 weeks or less

Also, he says 'only' three. That's three of eleven, in a five year span, and that after decades without one..

[Merlinsky]

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.

If changes to the Triple Crown schedule are to be made, then go all in and change the date of the Kentucky Derby.

Given the "way they are trained now argument" that has been used here and elsewhere, is a horse really ready to run 10 furlongs only four months (plus as much as one week) into his three-year-old season?

I suppose that not many people want the Derby date changed, do they?

Why? Tradition.

Nobody's twisting their arm to run in all 3 races so if it's too arduous for your horse fine, don't run. If you think you've got a legitimate chance to win the Derby, you better think you've got a horse that can do all 3 or don't whine when you've got the inevitable pressure to move on to the Preakness and Belmont even if your horse isn't really in good form. Everybody knows about it, it's an implied contract with the public that you'll keep going if you win the Derby. Don't run in the Derby if you're convinced the entirety of the TC is a bad idea as it stands. Notice we somehow still have a packed Derby field. It's on the people involved to find a way to break their own Derby fever.

Derby fever may overwhelm people, but presumably they have brains and are perfectly capable of doing the right thing by their horse that isn't able to handle all 3 races (which you know some of them know darn well going in if they're honest). They choose to make unwise entry decisions and that's not the TC series' fault. There's no shame in treating races like the Tesio, Peter Pan or Sir Barton as a goal for your horse rather than a prep. You wouldn't need to limit the Derby field if people answered the 'if my horse wins the Derby, will they be able to finish the TC journey well?' before dropping their name in the box.

[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

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Also, he says 'only' three. That's three of eleven, in a five year span, and that after decades without one..

Danzig, it's 3 in a 45-year span, compared to the other 8 in a 49-year span. So, with the current spacing, 1 every 15 years vs 1 every 6 years for the earlier winners. I think it's fair to say "only" three. What the cause is, and whether it matters, is what's open to debate.

--Dunbar

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Danzig, it's 3 in a 45-year span, compared to the other 8 in a 49-year span. So, with the current spacing, 1 every 15 years vs 1 every 6 years for the earlier winners. I think it's fair to say "only" three. What the cause is, and whether it matters, is what's open to debate.

--Dunbar

Its three in a nine year span since they made the change, and a lot of close calls. A lot. Not just derby/Preakness combos either. Others took two of thee pretty often. Swale, riva ridge, risen star, afleet Alex, point given off the top of my head. Spacing is not an issue.

[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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Its three in a nine year span since they made the change, and a lot of close calls. A lot. Not just derby/Preakness combos either. Others took two of thee pretty often. Swale, riva ridge, risen star, afleet Alex, point given off the top of my head. Spacing is not an issue.

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.

[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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Point Given was not a horse suited to running on the lead, while Congaree certainly was. Taking a horse out of his preferred running style can lead to worse than normal performances.

You know all of that already though, doncha?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

It was the ride on Eddington that I was referring to, sorry for not being more precise there. That was very reminiscent of Forty Niner in the Preakness. Both were ridden to not win their respective races.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Really dude? Watch the race again.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Yeah, it might be a bit of a stretch about him, but he lost all hope with that ride. He should have gotten the jump on Bet Twice and even McCarron said later on that his ride cost Alysheba the race.

[Danzig]

Why is smarty still being brought up? I thought chuck explained his injury, that it wasn't that serious.
Smarty was retired for one reason, and it wasn't cartilage. He didn't run again for a reason, and its green.

Plenty of horses disprove what one horse is being used to prove.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Cardus

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.

You may be surprised, I was. In the last 45 years only 9 times did more than 3 horses compete in all 3 races. 3 in the 70's, twice in the 80's,3 in the 90's and the last in 2001.With the addition of GARod 3 of the last 4 years have had 3 participants in the TC. It's random and cyclical.

The biggest difference is the diminishing number of Derby/Preakness starters. Another difference is that in the 70's quite a few horses that were Derby/Belmont starters ran in a race other than the Preakness in between, rather than resting until the Belmont. Some even ran in all 3 TC races and a race in between the Preakness and Belmont. Gulch/Avies Copy in 87 and Cefis in 88 were the last to run the quad.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Point Given was not a horse suited to running on the lead, while Congaree certainly was. Taking a horse out of his preferred running style can lead to worse than normal performances.

You know all of that already though, doncha?




It was the ride on Eddington that I was referring to, sorry for not being more precise there. That was very reminiscent of Forty Niner in the Preakness. Both were ridden to not win their respective races.




Really dude? Watch the race again.




Yeah, it might be a bit of a stretch about him, but he lost all hope with that ride. He should have gotten the jump on Bet Twice and even McCarron said later on that his ride cost Alysheba the race.

Point Given wasn't on the lead in the Derby. He was sitting about 5-6 lengths back. As fast as the pace was, he should have definitely been further back. But as badly as he ran, there is no way anyone can say he should have won. He got beat by 12 lengths. Horses who were closer to the lead beat him and horses who were further back beat him. He didn't even come close to running the best race of anyone in that race. There is no logical way to look at that race and say that he should have won. If a horse is supposed to be laying about 10 lengths back but the jock only has them 5 back and they end up losing by 2 lengths, you can make a good case that the horse might have won with a better ride. But when a horse is a little closer than they should be and the horse gets beat by 12 lengths, I don't know how you could say that horse could have won. I guarantee you Baffert does not think that ride cost him the race.

With regard to Smarty Jones, his trip wasn't that bad. It's not like Eddington was head and head with him. Smarty was pretty much clear and he wasn't going that fast. I admit that Smarty Jones probably could have won the race if he went much much slower and nobody put any pressure on him. But why would you expect that to happen? Considering that Smarty won the Preakness by 10 lengths, it's not shocking that he could have won the Belmont if he got a completely uncontested lead in slow fractions.

I watched Afleet Alex's Ky Derby this afternoon. If every horse I ever bet on in the Derby got that trip I would be thrilled. It was a relatively clean trip. If you have a relatively clean trip in a 20 horse field, it's a good day.

With regard to Alysheba, the guy who was screaming about the ride was Van Berg. Van Berg had supposedly told McCarron before the race that he didn't think there was much speed and that Alysheba could probably go to the lead. I don't know why Van Berg would have thought that Alysheba would be in front of Bet Twice. Bet Twice was ahead of Alysheba in the early going in both the Derby and the Preakness and Alysheba was still able to beat him. Anyway, Van Berg claims the ride in the Belmont cost Alysheba the race. I don't know what he is smoking. He was very critical of McCarron. McCarron was diplomatic about it. He said maybe it was a bad ride. He never said he thought it cost him the race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Why is smarty still being brought up? I thought chuck explained his injury, that it wasn't that serious.
Smarty was retired for one reason, and it wasn't cartilage. He didn't run again for a reason, and its green.

Plenty of horses disprove what one horse is being used to prove.

Chuck never explained his injury. Dunbar posted an article where Dr. Bramlage said the horse had swelling in his ankles and he needed time off. He said the horse could have come back the next year. I don't necessarily believe it. The vet has no obligation to the public in a case like this. His obligation is to the owner and trainer of the horse. When a horse is going to stand at stud, the owners don't want the vet to announce that the horse is very unsound and can never come back.

How could you possibly claim that the horse had no cartilage damage in his ankles? You would have no way of knowing that. You can't believe everything that you read. The public comments that you read from owners and trainers is often times bs. I'm not just guessing that. I know that for a fact. I've seen it first hand. For example, they will often say publicly that a horse has a foot bruise when they have something much more serious.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to Smarty Jones, his trip wasn't that bad. It's not like Eddington was head and head with him. Smarty was pretty much clear and he wasn't going that fast. I admit that Smarty Jones probably could have won the race if he went much much slower and nobody put any pressure on him. But why would you expect that to happen? Considering that Smarty won the Preakness by 10 lengths, it's not shocking that he could have won the Belmont if he got a completely uncontested lead in slow fractions.

I watched Afleet Alex's Ky Derby this afternoon. If every horse I ever bet on in the Derby got that trip I would be thrilled. It was a relatively clean trip. If you have a relatively clean trip in a 20 horse field, it's a good day.

I.....





















THUD!!!