if the 'big three' go in the belmont, pletcher says rags will not go, but will point to the mother goose instead....if two of three go, he says he'll consider it....

sightseeing is not pointing to the belmont, shug wants to give him more time. nobiz a possibility.

in the last few weeks, pletcher moved to first place in the trainers standings...he had been behind o'neill.

My question is which two of the three would have to not run in order for the Belmont to be likely and which one of the three would have to skip the race in order for him to consider it strongly? Say for instance only Hard Spun goes. Does Pletcher then go in the Belmont with Rags? What if the one is Curlin or if it's Street Sense? Does he still go because it's only one? I don't know if that makes sense to me. If he's not going in with the intention of winning, why go at all? And if he is going with the intention of winning.....and thinks his horse can beat either Curlin or Street Sense, shouldn't he feel that his horse can beat both of them since they are pretty much even? And if he feels his horse can beat them, he should feel his horse can beat Hard Spun too. So why not run if all three are there if u feel u can beat all three?

I'm just happy that the smart Sumwon hasn't yet figured out how to escape from the shedrow, after she throws her hotwalkers around for grins and entertainment. I know you don't train hurdlers.

Rags to Riches may indeed be the best three-year-old in the country, she can win the Belmont, and I'd love to see her there. I don't think Hard Spun wants to go that far, but we'll see, I guess. I wish Street Sense and Curlin would not enter, take some short time off, come back late summer and hammer away at each other all fall and make true legends of themselves, with Hard Spun in the mix.

Rags to Riches wins the Belmont, a length ahead of Curlin, two in front of Tiago.

I'm sending you my lucky underwear to wear in my absence. Danzig will get me a picture :p

oh, i'd have to get EVERYONE a picture!!

good questions!

Yes, me too. I really hate seeing a deep field of quality horses compete for a million dollars. I mean, it is so common in today's racing and all.

This quite simply makes no sense whatsoever. If the horses are healthy and fit now, why not see all three of them compete against each other right now?
Does running in the Belmont somehow disqualify them from the Travers? No.
Would skipping the Belmont somehow ensure that they would be in the Travers? No.
As for there being "no need for them to run in the Belmont," if there is no need for good horses to run in a million dollar, G1 Classic, this sport might as well pack it in right now.

Consider the source, eh?

What?
If all three of the top colts go, her chances of winning would absolutely be decreased. Not because one particular colt is better than her, but because it just stacks up as a much more difficult race overall. I am not saying that I agree with TP's rationale (she could win no matter who shows up), but it sounds to me like he is deciding whether or not to send her based on how tough the race comes up. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

I would have to agree, Lets line em all up, throw in the filly and anyone else that wants to run, and we could have the most exciting Belmont in years. Even without a TC possibility.

I think his intent was that if we see the same BIG 3 in the Belmont,
then I fear a 6 horse field, completed with 2 maidens and a plodder.
That's exaggerating a bit, but you know what I mean. I think it will be a more exciting race if we have a larger, more diverse group.

Obviously if Street Sense wins the Preakness, then my opinion is greatly changed, but the prospect of these 2 (or 3) facing off again in 3 weeks doesn't really do much for me as a fan.

Just so I understand you correctly, you hope that some of the big colts skip the race, because if they don't colts like Zanjero and Imawildandcrazyguy might be scared away? I think I would rather watch "the big three" than those two.
I guess I like to see the best horses compete in the best races.
I guess I am just too old-fashioned in that regard.

I would rather see Hard Spun, Curlin, and Street Sense in a three horse Belmont than not see those three and have some nag win the race.

It is hard to fathom how Hard Spun, Street Sense, and Curlin lining up again in two weeks and going at it would be bad for racing. Rags to Riches should run in the race as well.

If I could somehow see the future and know that even if they run Belmont that they would be back for the summer and fall, I would be all for them running. But recent history tells me that this is not going to be the case. Haven't u all seen Smarty, Alex, Giacomo, Jazil, Bluegrass Cat, Empire Maker, Point Given, Charismatic, Monarchos, Silver Charm, and Real Quiet? Various reasons for their not running. Some physical, some economical. I understand that but the end result is that they still did not run. I can't guarantee that skipping the Belmont would mean they would be there for the Haskell and Travers and more. But I don't like the current trend. Over the past 10 seasons, we've had 11 horses that have won at least one TC race while competing in all three races. Of those 11, eight of them failed to finish their 3yo seasons. Seven of those eight didn't run again that year after the Belmont. For a sport that's so entrenched in remembering history and jinx' and trends, I'm surprised this one isn't being looked at more.

What kind of buy out inducement would it take?

well, obviously we'd all be geniuses if we could know the future, and decide based on that knowledge....

i believe if a horse is ready now, you run them now. if they seem to need a break, give them one. but to 'save' a horse for later may not work at all-skip a race now, then miss later as well, which of course could happen--there is no guarantee of anything.
can't help thinking tho that it wasn't just the rigors of racing that kept some of these latest contenders from running again post-t.c.

To an extent, I agree. I remember when Zito skipped the Juvenile with Eurosilver and Birdstone while mentioning how he wanted to save them for the Derby. I thought that was silly. I thought like u do......strike while the iron is hot. I still feel that way. But in that case and in a lot of other cases, we can't find a direct connection between races. I think that with the TC races, we can. It's just odd to me that this being such a tradition and trend driven sport, this isn't brought up more. There was never any guarantee that running three preps or not having a layoff more than four weeks would win u a Derby. There was no guarantee that having a 2yo foundation would win the race. Yet people stick with these things like they are law. Well they pretty much did until this year. These facts that I've given, they aren't made up though. They aren't beliefs. And even though I agree with u that it wasn't always racing rigors that led to those horses leaving us, they still did. I understand that some of it was economics, especially in the cases of Empire Maker and Point Given. That could happen with one of these two also. When seven of 11 haven't run past the Belmont and eight of the 11 didn't finish their 3yo seasons out, that's not giving me hope that this year's group will be any different. I don't want to be saying next year that it's 10 of 13.

but by the same token, what were the records of those horses leading up to the derby? street sense has run four times this year. hard spun with an eight week layoff leading to the derby, curlin's fourth lifetime was the derby. so how do those compare to the training, racing, of those who came before?