But here we are again, stuck on the corner of Disheartened and Disenchanted, because when racing reaches a crossroads it blinks and wrings its hands. In the name of tradition the sport does nothing but lament its fate then refuses to do anything about it.
The Triple Crown can be changed for the better, just like other sports that changed with the times. I, too, mourn the loss of superb execution that can result in a dynasty: Bradshaw’s Steelers. The Canadiens of Richard and Beliveau and Geoffrion and Plante. The Yankees, from DiMaggio to Mantle. Michael’s Bulls. The Celtics of Russell and Cousy and Havlicek. I only rooted for one, but loved watching them all.
However, I can’t argue that parity through expansion and salary caps and free agency and extended playoff seasons has kept fans of the major sports engaged. The problem is that mediocrity is marketable and everyone worships at the altar of the bottom line.
But racing can change its showcase event and make it better, not weaken quality the way the other sports have. Racing need only embrace a new philosophy and not be afraid to gamble that lengthening the series would at once do the best thing for the modern horse and place a greater emphasis on horsemanship.
I would argue that it is easier for a superior three-year-old to dominate his rivals over five weeks than it would be for the same horse to extend that dominance over a greater number of stronger rivals for a longer period of time.
Today’s thoroughbred is sleek, not stout, and often inherently unsound because that’s the price paid for decades of medication-infused bloodlines. Gone are the days when old-school horsemen can routinely get to the bottom of their stock to attain total fitness. They still can reach bottom, of course, but the recovery time takes longer.
Speed in the stallion and his offspring is the element horsemen covet most. Speed cannot be taught, like height on a basketball court. Without equivocation the measure of speed defines class and is the game’s only absolute truth. But it comes at the expense of stamina, the price paid for growing sales ring receipts.
Degrees of unsoundness, permissive medication, speedy pedigree, lack of stoutness and today’s harder, faster surfaces compel modern horsemen with an understanding of form-cycle analysis to race today’s thoroughbred far less frequently. This is a fact of racing life at every racetrack every racing day, not just the demanding Triple Crown.
The classics as presently constructed is nothing if not anachronistic. It follows that for the health of the horse, the silencing of critics who argue for racing’s abolition, and to promote the game in a more meaningful fashion, the Triple Crown needs to be tweaked. And it needs to happen now.
Without question, a Triple Crown of longer duration makes sense. First and foremost, it would better serve today’s thoroughbred. And makes promotional sense by keeping the series alive into early summer. To wit:
The distances and venues should remain the same--if that’s possible given the current state of Maryland racing. And the Derby has secured its traditional place on the first Saturday in May. Because of its distance, place on the calendar, and field size, the Kentucky Derby remains the most difficult of the three to win. “America’s Race” needs to stay right where it is.
Run the Preakness on the first Saturday in June, lending it added identity and giving the Derby horses an extra two weeks to recover. By adding two weeks, the race likely would attract more Derby runners while providing extra time for late developers and non-Derby qualifiers to join the chase. This does right by still maturing 3-year-olds and makes the challenge for horsemen more daunting.
And what could be a more appropriate date to conclude this unique American series than the 4th of July? This would make the Belmont an instant classic for the general sports fan, a national TV holiday event run sometime between the barbecue and the fireworks. Further, it makes the race less dependent on a Triple Crown quest.
This schedule would give promoters nine weeks to bang the drum instead of five. And wouldn’t the accomplishment be even greater if the Derby and/or Preakness winner had to defeat a larger number of series rivals?
Find a sponsor to bring back the participation and winner’s bonus and increase the purses of the final two legs. All this would upset none of the traditional Derby prep schedules and allow horsemen more time to develop their maturing stock. The lesser Derbies would still have their place and there would be no need for Monmouth Park and Saratoga to alter the dates of their Haskell and Travers.
A longer Triple Crown season simultaneously increases and decreases the degree of difficulty, brightens the spotlight, creates and sustains added interest, produces bigger and better wagering events, all while doing what’s best for the animal. When will the time come for enlightened self interest?



02 Jun 2007 at 01:03 am | #
Those are challenging observations.However anachronistic I am against changing anything about the triple crown. 29 horses have had a chance at greatness but could not pass the test of champions.I beleive that demonstrates that the derby and preakness are scheduled plenty far apart. However you hit the nail on the head. The proliferation of drugs has severely curbed the development of horsemanship and that is one of the reasons you seldom see a true champion. The other is that there is only one Gr1 race at 1 1/2 miles in the USA and that is the Belmont. What a shame.Trainers are not getting opportunities to gain experience at prepping a horse for 12 panels. e. But i do not feel that giving them more time between the preakness and belmont would change anything. But I like the idea of the belmont on july the 4th! we are like minded on many issues but nothing can save racing. Racing is not following it’s own traditions. A 1 1/8 strub and woodward? a 1 1/8 super derby? 1 1/16 champage stakes? and even the san jaun capistrano has been shortened. you do not see this going on in europe! oh well maybe the brooklyn will go back to 1 5/8 and the whitney will go back on the calender where it belongs. Racing has gone down. but if the racetracks won’t preserve the identity of their races and the owners & breeders won’t step up what can you and i do? maybe we are the anachronisms because we want to see racing as it used to be instead of what it is today.
02 Jun 2007 at 12:40 pm | #
Walter, you’re right about the Grade 1 Belmont. My wife doesn’t get excited about the Jockey Club Gold Cup after it was shortened from two miles. But I think technology can save racing, although perhaps not in our lifetimes. But I agree with the best observation you made: “We are the anachronisms.” Bravo! Thanks for your interest, Walter.
02 Jun 2007 at 05:57 pm | #
It would be idiotic to change the Triple Crown. The configuration of the races didn’t keep Spectacular Bid, Risen Star or Real Quiet from winning the TC, questionable rides or a poor trip kept them from winning. Using your logic the crowd at Churchill should have been reduced and quiet should have been demanded after Damascus lost the Derby in 1968. No one has to win the Triple Crown, sometime a horse good enough to win it will come along and do so. Before Ron Franklin tried to break Secretariat’s record in 1979 the Triple Crown was beginning to look pretty easy.
02 Jun 2007 at 10:17 pm | #
John, I read your commentary regarding the Triple Crown with rapt attention, and must say that agree with your overall premise that it is worthwhile to contemplate changing the schedule of the three races to space them better, especially if the objective is to bring greater continuity to the competition.
In the early ‘90’s,as you may recall, I was a VP at the Maryland Jockey Club, and among my duties was responsibility for the stakes schedule, which meant our major events---Preakness included. Each year, following the Triple Crown races, the three tracks would gather informally to discuss any issues regarding the series, including ways to improve it from a coordination standpoint. At that time, there was some media debate over the length of time between the races, and the tracks did discuss this on more than one occasion.
We always started with the premise that the Derby would remain on the first Saturday in May, and conversations with senior management at NYRA indicated that they did not feel the placement of the Belmont was critical from an attendance standpoint. I.e., they were flexible about its date.
From Maryland’s standpoint, there were a couple of economic factors to consider. One, most critically, was that the event had grown substantially because of the large infield crowd, mostly made up of college students from the surrounding area. If the race was move a week or two further forward, we knew we would lose a number of those kids who would be out of school and at home or in summer jobs. Additionally, Memorial Day weekend, which follows the Preakness, has always been the first great beach getaway for locals, another important consideration.
Within a few years the discussion was moot because there were several horses who won the first two legs and went to New York alive for the “Triple.”
Given the state of things in Maryland today, the Preakness is even more important economically to the MJC than ever, and their officials would likely be loathe to tamper with the event’s date at this time.
If, however, the objective of the series is to showcase the best three-year-olds in training in the sport’s most glamorous division, then perhaps it is time to talk about a strategy that leads in a different direction for the future. Perhaps if, as I would expect, Maryland finally gets a slots bill that will benefit racing later this year, the door will start to open for changes.
Of course, one cannot know what will become of NYRA, and the decision made there two years ago to take the Belmont to ABC and thus break up the continuity of Triple Crown coverage was, while perhaps financially useful to NYRA in the near term, not a harbinger of future harmony and cooperation among the tracks.
But, this is horse racing, where such commodities are rarely noted.
03 Jun 2007 at 07:28 am | #
Curtis,
Can’t say we agree, of course, but love your passion. Racing needs more fans like you. Thanks very much for your interest in HRI.
John
03 Jun 2007 at 07:38 am | #
Tim,
Thanks so much for responding.
Without getting into too much detail, I think Pimlico or Belmont should be willing to take hits in the short term for the long term health of the series and the sport until folks get used to a new paradigm--if the theory that moving the Preakness would hurt business is indeed valid.
I’d have my doubts about that premise but you probably know better, having served on the front lines for the MJC. Good luck at the University of Louisville and your work with Richard Wilcke. I know he’s a well respected academician. Read your recent Equine Spectator blog and found it most interesting.
Keep doing good things and say hello to coach for me. See you at the races.
John
03 Jun 2007 at 11:19 am | #
While reconstructing the Triple Crown may well promote the percentage of future winners, it does not address the basic premise behind the Thoroughbred in America. Perhaps we should not change the barometer of ability in the three year old by changing the races to suit the horse which we have created. Careful attention should be paid to breeding for soundness and durability in addition to speed. The quest for precocity does not serve as a single measure of success. Medications used as a quick fix are not the solution to the future of racing. The current focus on improving track conditions and racing medications can be used as a powerful tool in improving both the breed and sport. We must not take short cuts to do that and restructure the Triple Crown to accommodate issues which should be addressed at a more basic level. Bottom line: It is still about the horses.
09 Jun 2007 at 08:51 am | #
Dear Filly,
Your points are extremely well taken. But we did not suggest lengthening the Crown as a quick fix solution to anything. The process should be done your way, at a basic level. But you have more faith in the system as constructed than I do. And I would still argue that altering the schedule is not only in the best interests of today’s racehorse but it might make it harder for a runner to extend his domination over a longer duration. Thanks for your interest and your passion for the horses and the game.