GatewayRedbirds.com

TC winners have won the race with competition who was rested, although I think there is no question that today's horses face more and stiffer competition wtih rested horses. I think the best answer is to lengthen the time between races, the other thing to do is to add on a tax to enter the Belmont (and Preakness) if you skipped one of the other races. Stakes races cost an entry fee (believe it or not those cheap claiming races you see at tracks do not cost an entry fee - if the horse is ready he runs. In fact the only type of race that costs an owner money is a Stakes race). These guys are all in it for $$, if you make it cost prohibitive then you would implicitly encourage horses to run one or both of the previous races.

The only problem is that the organizers are all seperate - what is good for the entirety of the three races may not sit will with the Belmont or Preakness or Derby folks.

AW - that "turbo" button you talk about actually has a term that horse people use, it's called "firing". You may read or hear that CC didn't fire, that's basically saying that turbo button you talk about wasn't there.

I still can't figure out whehter this guy is a sore loser or a breath of fresh air or a little of both. I do think the rant on TV at the track was not good, he should have waited and then went on a campaign after that.

jim wrote:
I still can't figure out whehter this guy is a sore loser or a breath of fresh air or a little of both. I do think the rant on TV at the track was not good, he should have waited and then went on a campaign after that.

It needed to be said, and while the timing wasn't the best, that was probably the only opportunity he would have had. The audience any other time would have been < 10% of what he had at the time.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

jim wrote:
I still can't figure out whehter this guy is a sore loser or a breath of fresh air or a little of both. I do think the rant on TV at the track was not good, he should have waited and then went on a campaign after that.

It needed to be said, and while the timing wasn't the best, that was probably the only opportunity he would have had. The audience any other time would have been < 10% of what he had at the time.

That is true. Maybe had he have waited it would have just kind of been a faint hum in the distance.

[/youtube]
Easy to forget just how close Smarty Jones was.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

jim wrote:
I still can't figure out whehter this guy is a sore loser or a breath of fresh air or a little of both. I do think the rant on TV at the track was not good, he should have waited and then went on a campaign after that.

It needed to be said, and while the timing wasn't the best, that was probably the only opportunity he would have had. The audience any other time would have been < 10% of what he had at the time.

It's nothing new, though, that's what makes Triple Crown winners truly something special.

TimeForGuinness wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

jim wrote:
I still can't figure out whehter this guy is a sore loser or a breath of fresh air or a little of both. I do think the rant on TV at the track was not good, he should have waited and then went on a campaign after that.

It needed to be said, and while the timing wasn't the best, that was probably the only opportunity he would have had. The audience any other time would have been < 10% of what he had at the time.

It's nothing new, though, that's what makes Triple Crown winners truly something special.

That's true to an extent, but it does seem like more of a trend to hold out really good horses to take a shot at the Belmont. In '73 for example, Sham was the primary competitor to Secretariat. It was a fierce rivalry, the owner of Sham wanted to beat that horse. He went after him at the Preakness and gave him a run, but was completely spent for the Belmont. The poor horse tried to stay with Big Red and just couldn't do it, and ended up finishing last. The second place horse that year, Twice a Prince, did not run in either of the prior two classic races. So Secretariat had fresh legs to beat too, but I just don't know that that horse was the quality of the rested horses you are seeing today.

But on the flip side ... Tonalist wasn't exactly a horse with a stellar background. You can read what I said earlier, the horse showed promise in previous races and had to make CC nervous because he was an unknown, and now that i know what I know I can see things in the previous record that I wish I would have spotted before the race:

11/16/2013: 4th place at Aqeuduct in a Maiden Special Race (Maiden means no horse in the race has ever won). The race was a mile, he went off at 16-1, so the racing community didn't think alot of him at the time. He finished 3 lengths behind the lead, although it did show he was in the back of the pack early in the race. The notes say the jockey "asked 3/8 pl" which means he was on the whip, and the horse did seem to respond. He closed ground from the 1/4 mile to the 1/2 mile poles. When I see that, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that the horse had what it took but simply wasn't sure what to do in a race environment.

1/18/2014: At Gulfstream the horse breaks his maiden, winning with a strong finish by 4 lengths over a mile and 1/8. The horse was 5 wide in the last turn, and he hit that "turbo" button that AW talked about. This was a $47k purse, so a strong field, but still all horses that had never won. So clues that he had promise and could handle the distance (notice this race was longer and he seemed to excel than his previous race).

2/22/2014: At Gulfstream, he finishes 2nd in an allowance race. This is the race that really raised questions for me, he lost to Constitution where the notes say "second best". That means when push came to shove down the stretch, the better horse was Constitution (that horse is 3/3 though, including a followup win at the Florida Derby, so maybe I should have given him more credit).

5/10/2014: When other horses are fresh of the Derby, this horse is running in a Grade 2 stakes race (there are 3 grades, where grade 1 is the highest). He basically leads or is near the lead from start to finish, taking a 3 1/2 length lead into the last turn and winning by 4 over 1 1/8 mile.

So that's the body of work, and while it's solid I just don't see that as something a true TC horse could not beat, even with tired legs. Part of me sympathizes with the guys complaint, the other part thinks that he just didn't have a horse of that TC caliber.

I think the right compromise is to spread it out, give a few extra weeks to let the horses rest. I don't think you can just eliminate horses from competing, although again maybe put a financial incentive so that they would want to compete. I also think spreading it out is healthier for the horses.

If nothing else it's good for the sport, we went to dinner right after the race and there was a young group of people at the table next to us talking about horse racing. They spent probably 10 minutes talking about the race, and then their experiences at Arlington Park, and they were definitely casual fans (the guy doing most of the talking spit out the word "Trifecta" and then followed it up by admitting he wasn't sure what that meant).

As far as the comment above about the cruelty of the sport, I don't deny at all that it needs cleaned up. There are many in the game who do not have the horse interest in mind at all, and that is a shame. I doubt I would ever do it, but I've kicked the idea of getting into the game myself - maybe when I retire. Something cheap, not looking to win a Derby, but something that I could tinker with at a place like Arlington or Hawthorne or Fairmount.

Something I did not know before today.

Then there was Gallant Fox’s Triple Crown, which was run in a different order from the modern version. In 1930, the Preakness took place the week before the Kentucky Derby. This was actually the first time the Triple Crown was recognized as a series (Sir Barton’s status as racing’s first winner was awarded retroactively) although Gallant Fox’s name does not bear an asterisk in most history books for having completed them out of order.

So what do you think? Will we see a push for better scheduling of events, more rest, a "qualifying" entry policy vs open stakes? I don't care whether I see a horse win this thing again. Certain things should be elusive in life. Like Cubs world series wins. Horses have won this thing. It's not insurmountable. Some [expletive] should be really [expletive] hard to win. This is one of those things.

I think it benefits everyone - including the health of the horses - to pad time in the schedule. I can't see forcing horse to run all 3, although I think having an incentive to run all 3 is fine. If you force a horse to run all 3 I think it's a very dangerous game - think of the scenario where a horse should not run but the vet is under pressure to let him run because of the implications that he also can run the next race. If a vet were to not allow a horse to run for the Derby, then he's effectively wiping him out of the next two. That's too much pressure, they already have enough pressure to make the right call, that's just going to make it worse.

BTW - not sure if people knew this or not either, but more gee-whiz info. The term "vetted" that you hear in politics all of the time now is actually a horse racing term, meaning that the vet has done the pre-race examination and declared it fit to run. The horse has been vetted = the horse was ok'ed to run the race by the vet.

jim wrote:I think it benefits everyone - including the health of the horses - to pad time in the schedule. I can't see forcing horse to run all 3, although I think having an incentive to run all 3 is fine. If you force a horse to run all 3 I think it's a very dangerous game - think of the scenario where a horse should not run but the vet is under pressure to let him run because of the implications that he also can run the next race. If a vet were to not allow a horse to run for the Derby, then he's effectively wiping him out of the next two. That's too much pressure, they already have enough pressure to make the right call, that's just going to make it worse.

BTW - not sure if people knew this or not either, but more gee-whiz info. The term "vetted" that you hear in politics all of the time now is actually a horse racing term, meaning that the vet has done the pre-race examination and declared it fit to run. The horse has been vetted = the horse was ok'ed to run the race by the vet.

I didn't know that, awesome.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

jim wrote:Watching a horse hit that turbo button is like watching a MLB pitcher just dialing up 100 mph heat and nobody having a chance.

Exactly, and CC couldn't do it Saturday at the Belmont. I understand where the owner is coming from, but CC could have won that race if he was 'special'. To ask for none of the other horses to have that turbo button at the end is really silly, even if they probably wouldn't if they ran all three races.

Take a look the replay on the King Edwards Stakes yesterday. Good example of the turbo kicking in. It's the 2 horse in orange silks that is the one to watch coming out of the last turn.

http://www.equibase.com/