Tom Chuckas on Preakness/TC Spacing

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Most would? Show me.

If most wanted it changed,it would. Look at poly going away for example. And of course its tough, else anyone could do it.

I couldn't tell you whether most want it changed or not. That wasn't what I said. I said that most trainers would tell you that the spacing is one of the most challenging things about the TC.

[Danzig]

The spacing is known, it is no mystery. I would think the challenges are mainly things you cannot control.
Weather, pace, post, health/well being of the horse, managing him to bring him into the three races in peak form, racing luck, the ride, temperament, etc.
The only thing you know for sure is when the races are.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

The spacing is known, it is no mystery. I would think the challenges are mainly things you cannot control.
Weather, pace, post, health/well being of the horse, managing him to bring him into the three races in peak form, racing luck, the ride, temperament, etc.
The only thing you know for sure is when the races are.

Yes, as you said what is so challenging is for a horse to be able to run close to his best 3 races in a row in a 5 weeks stretch. If you have the best horse, it's not that hard to win 3 races in a row against horses that you are better than. But one of the main reasons it is so tough to win these 3 races in 5 weeks is that most of these horses are knocked out after the first two legs. To come back and run 1 1/2 miles just 3 weeks later is insane. That is the main reason why no horse has done it in 36 years.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What is so challenging is for a horse to be able to run close to his best 3 races in a row in a 5 weeks stretch. If you have the best horse, it's not that hard to win 3 races in a row against horses that you are better than. But one of the main reasons it is so tough to win these 3 races in 5 weeks is that most of these horses are knocked out after the first two legs. To come back and run 1 1/2 miles just 3 weeks later is insane. That is the main reason why no horse has done it in 36 years.

Well, since a portion of the thirty six years included horses who had no shot to win the tc because they lost the derby or Preakness, I cannot agree. A variety of things can cause the best horse to lose a race. I cannot believe you think it is not that hard to lose. Weather, track conditions, a shoe, a bad break, jockey error...hell, the bid was one of the best ever, he lost because of a bad ride. Riva ridge lost the tc in a sloppy Preakness. Risen star, third in the derb, won the latter two...afleet Alex did the same. Then there's the more recent years with three different winners, and faces scratching mornings of the race.
To blame lack of a crown on spacing is oversimplifying the whole thing. If you had horses most years winning the first two and losing the third, you might have a point.
Horses go to the Belmont about one third of the time with a tc shot. That means two thirds of the time, it was already a done deal and no tc on the line. For as many as you could find who say its spacing, you'd probably find as many wanting to shorten the Belmont...or more.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Well, since a portion of the thirty six years included horses who had no shot to win the tc because they lost the derby or Preakness, I cannot agree. A variety of things can cause the best horse to lose a race. I cannot believe you think it is not that hard to lose. Weather, track conditions, a shoe, a bad break, jockey error...hell, the bid was one of the best ever, he lost because of a bad ride. Riva ridge lost the tc in a sloppy Preakness. Risen star, third in the derb, won the latter two...afleet Alex did the same. Then there's the more recent years with three different winners, and faces scratching mornings of the race.
To blame lack of a crown on spacing is oversimplifying the whole thing. If you had horses most years winning the first two and losing the third, you might have a point.
Horses go to the Belmont about one third of the time with a tc shot. That means two thirds of the time, it was already a done deal and no tc on the line. For as many as you could find who say its spacing, you'd probably find as many wanting to shorten the Belmont...or more.

What I'm saying is that if there is a horse who is a standout in its division, it's not that hard to win 3 races in a row if the horse has plenty of rest between each race. It is obviously 100X tougher to win the TC than it would be for some grade I mare to win 3 in a row running once every 6 weeks. Three year olds are obviously a little more fragile and that is part of it, but the spacing is huge too. The spacing is huge and the distance of the Belmont is huge. I'm not advocating this but if the TC races were once every 5 weeks and the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles, the number of TC winners would rise dramatically. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What I'm saying is that if there is a horse who is a standout in its division, it's not that hard to win 3 races in a row if the horse has plenty of rest between each race. It is obviously 100X tougher to win the TC than it would be for some grade I mare to win 3 in a row running once every 6 weeks. Three year olds are obviously a little more fragile and that is part of it, but the spacing is huge too. The spacing is huge and the distance of the Belmont is huge. I'm not advocating this but if the TC races were once every 5 weeks and the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles, the number of TC winners would rise dramatically. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

why would we want the number of tc winners to rise dramatically? many think it draws more fans each year to see if it'll happen, that when/if it does happen, that it will actually produce less interest following it.
i don't get the pearl clutching over it.
if 3 yo's are more fragile, why would you want to make it easier for one to win this, thereby giving him a bigger following in the shed, thus breeding more fragility? makes no sense.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why would we want the number of tc winners to rise dramatically? many think it draws more fans each year to see if it'll happen, that when/if it does happen, that it will actually produce less interest following it.
i don't get the pearl clutching over it.
if 3 yo's are more fragile, why would you want to make it easier for one to win this, thereby giving him a bigger following in the shed, thus breeding more fragility? makes no sense.

The reason I'd like to see an extra week between each race is not so we would get more TC winners, although it would result in more TC winners. The reason I'd like to see the extra week is because I think the current TC schedule is too hard on the horses. I don't like a series of races that will often times ruin a horse forever. It only took the first two legs to end the careers of Bodemeister and I'll Have Another. Mine That Bird was never the same. Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex were finished. The list goes on and on. Sure there are occasionally horses that run great in all 3 races and come out of it relatively unscathed. But I think that is the exception to the rule. The trainers are well aware of this and that is why so many trainers drop out after the first leg, skip the middle leg, or skip the Belmont. If there was an extra week between races there would still be guys that would skip races but I think the percentage would drop a little bit. If you put an extra 2 weeks between races, I think the percentage would drop much more.

The bottom line to me is that the TC races under the current schedule have ruined a large percentage of the horses that have run well in all 3 races. I don't think it should be that way. Yes, the TC should be demanding, but not to the point where it ends so many careers.