Crist: The BC deserves NOT to have RA

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

While they didn't know the entire field in the Belmont, the Preakness generally is a more quality race. They were taking on the top 4 finishers in the Derby whereas the trend in the Belmont the past few years is a field of horses that didn't run well in the Derby or plodders that the connections feel the distance will help them. They could have taken the gamble that by the time the Belmont rolled around, the better horses would have dropped out and they would have a fresh horse.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more, both in terms of the relative strength of the Preakness versus the Belmont in general, or specifically with respect to this year's race.

Given trainers' desire for more time between races, the Preakness has become a race that generally is the weakest of the Triple Crown races, relegated to being less about Derby rematches and more about whether the Derby winner can keep the Triple Crown hope alive. The recent trend is for the better horses that did not win the Derby to pass the Preakness to run with five weeks rest in the Belmont.

The Preakness had a "deeper" field this year because of the perceived weakness of the 50-1 Derby winner. When the fact that highly regarded horses such as Dunkirk passed on the Preakness (and Quality Road had still not been taken out of consideration for the Belmont) was coupled with the distance, the Belmont would have been the far more ambitious spot. Rachel's presence is what made the Preakness this year. Without her, it would have been perceived as a very weak race.

(And I'll repeat that, after having run Rachel in the Preakness, I thought Jackson did the right thing by passing the Belmont.)