2014 Belmont Stakes

[ziravan]

It would be nice if all the Triple Crown races would have a shared qualification metric like the Kentucky Derby that is set by the time the Triple Crown season starts but that each race can make more stringent. the fact the Tonalist didn't even win a major race until the Peter Pan made him a literal "dark horse". Sadly, I think that things are not going to change because horses like Tonalist make things "exciting" . Personally, I think it's a real shame.

Tonalist had something CC didn't. The Peter Pan was run at Belmont. Tonalist had a history of winning at Belmont. CC didn't.

I read where almost every TC winner had a history of winning at Belmont. If you want to "build" a TC winner, you start there and only move horses that can excel at Belmont through the TC paces.

These days, everyone wants that Kentucky Derby win and they put everything into it. They "build" a Kentucky Derby horse. If they strike gold there, it's decent odds they can catch the second jewel in the crown.

Belmont is different. Far different. It's a more grueling race ran later in the season. The fact that so many recent TC candidates use race day to test their meddle at Belmont is why there haven't been any recent TC winners. But. That should be a given, or at least, expected outcome.

 

[jrmasm]

Of the 3, one was a genetic freak as I mentioned earlier. It's not supposed to be easy, but it should be a fair.

So two 'normal' horses have done it? That means it can be done.

In this was case, was there not a misstep early in the race? Did CC not run injured? That could have impacted the outcome. Had he won, no one would have been crying about the race being unfair.

 

[sam_gordon]

According to USA Today (please note the bolded)...

When Affirmed won the last Triple Crown in 1978 he did it by beating Alydar by 1 1/2 lengths in the Kentucky Derby, a neck in the Preakness and a head in the Belmont Stakes.They were the only two horses to run in all three races.

When Seattle Slew won the 1977 Triple Crown, there were two other horses that ran all three. The Belmont had eight horses.

In 1973 Secretariat defeated Sham in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness. Then in the Belmont he shook off his rival in a speed duel to win by 31 lengths and Sham faded to fifth. The second, third and fourth place horses in a five-horse race had not run in the Preakness.

Source

The three races weren't formed for the Triple Crown, right? They were existing races that the "Powers that Be" decided to name the triple crown. So each race is going to have it's own qualifying policies & rules.

I think a better argument is the spacing of the races. I didn't realize they had changed the time off between the races. I like the idea of a month apart (first Saturday in May, first Saturday in June, first Saturday in July).

On a slightly related note, I think the reason the Kentucky Derby has such a strict qualification is because of the number of entries. It's generally a 20 horse field and they can't add any more, so they have to find some way to limit it.

 

[Jennasis]

So two 'normal' horses have done it? That means it can be done.

In this was case, was there not a misstep early in the race? Did CC not run injured? That could have impacted the outcome. Had he won, no one would have been crying about the race being unfair.

That means it could be done AT ONE POINT IN TIME. Things are very different now.

There are a LOT of things at play as to why a Triple Crown winner is no longer likely, like it was back in the 70's. The sport has changed. Breeding has changed. Training has changed. You say it "can be done" because horses managed to do it 30 years ago. I'm saying it's a whole different ball game NOW.

 

[jrmasm]

That means it could be done AT ONE POINT IN TIME. Things are very different now.

There are a LOT of things at play as to why a Triple Crown winner is no longer likely, like it was back in the 70's. The sport has changed. Breeding has changed. Training has changed. You say it "can be done" because horses managed to do it 30 years ago. I'm saying it's a whole different ball game NOW.

Have there not been winners since the timing of the races were changed? Have there not been winners against fresh horses?

Are those not the reasons given for why the race wasn't fair?


That is what I am talking about when I say it can be done.

 

[Sanchez]

Have there not been winners since the timing of the races were changed? Have there not been winners against fresh horses?

Are those not the reasons given for why the race wasn't fair?


That is what I am talking about when I say it can be done.

Well of course it can be done but I don't see how that is proof that the dates should remain. The point is whether the current schedule is safe for the horses, good for the industry and interesting for the public. You are arguing tradition for tradition's sake. (And the current calendar has not been in place since the beginning so throw out the tradition argument.)

I do not know what you are getting at except to continually repeat "it has been done before." 300 wins used to be the measuring stick for baseball pitcher's greatness. Different (more heath conscious) training techniques, limited pitch counts, and arm-stressing sliders might move that number to 250 or 200. We move on.

Today's horses are not bred nor trained for three stressful races in five weeks. Drugs are more pervasive in the sport but also testing is regulated. Do you think that maybe Affirmed and Secretariat were drugged up in the 70's when drugs were not regulated? Quite likely.

It is time to think about what is best for the horses and the industry. It would be no great crime to schedule the races 4-5 weeks apart. More and better horses would participate in all of the races so you could argue that it would be MORE competitive. If people like you think less of a Triple Crown winner at that point then that is a small price to pay compared to the people who regularly follow the sport.

 

[jrmasm]

Well of course it can be done but I don't see how that is proof that the dates should remain. The point is whether the current schedule is safe for the horses, good for the industry and interesting for the public. You are arguing tradition for tradition's sake. (And the current calendar has not been in place since the beginning so throw out the tradition argument.)

I do not know what you are getting at except to continually repeat "it has been done before." 300 wins used to be the measuring stick for baseball pitcher's greatness. Different (more heath conscious) training techniques, limited pitch counts, and arm-stressing sliders might move that number to 250 or 200. We move on.

Today's horses are not bred nor trained for three stressful races in five weeks. Drugs are more pervasive in the sport but also testing is regulated. Do you think that maybe Affirmed and Secretariat were drugged up in the 70's when drugs were not regulated? Quite likely.

It is time to think about what is best for the horses and the industry. It would be no great crime to schedule the races 4-5 weeks apart. More and better horses would participate in all of the races so you could argue that it would be MORE competitive. If people like you think less of a Triple Crown winner at that point then that is a small price to pay compared to the people who regularly follow the sport.

Did you even read what you quoted?

I said since the dates were changed, horses have won the TC against fresh entries.


My point is simply that for me, the arguement that fresh entries make the race unfair doesn't hold water. I believe other factors weigh more heavily in why there hasn't been a TC winner is so many years.

While I understand Steve Coburn's disappointment, he rant felt like sour grapes to me.

And people like me? What do you know about me? And where did I say I would think less of a winner if the rules were changed? Oh my, talk about putting words in my mouth. I would be in favor of any changes that make the sport safer for the horses.

 

[Jennasis]

Have there not been winners since the timing of the races were changed? Have there not been winners against fresh horses?

Are those not the reasons given for why the race wasn't fair?

That is what I am talking about when I say it can be done.

The sport has changed significantly since the last TC winner. I'm not talking about the timing of the race. I don't know how else to say it.

 

[robinb]

Here's my take on it. Tonalist basically took a "bye" in the Derby and Preakness and his owners are $800,000 richer for it. But is the sport richer? I think that this kind of discussion is good, even among part-time fans like myself. I was listening to the radio this morning and the host said that Tonalist was the Rose Ruiz of horse racing . I think that's a stretch since he didn't cheat, but he was certainly a spoiler.

I think it's interesting upthread where someone said that it's an advantage to have raced at Belmont prior to the Belmont Stakes. I wonder how the horses can do that when the race track is not open in the winter. Don't most of the horses run their big races in Florida and California as young 3-year olds?

The sport has changed significantly since the last TC winner. I'm not talking about the timing of the race. I don't know how else to say it.

Can you expand on that maybe? What are the horses bred for now that they were not 50 years ago?

 

[sam_gordon]

Here's something I don't get... people say horse racing "needs" a Triple Crown winner to keep people interested. What are they basing that on? If you all of a sudden end up with a rash of Triple Crown winners, wouldn't that cut the excitement level?

For the Belmont, the ratings were high, the betting was high, the attendance was high, all setting near record (if not record) levels. How do you get MORE excitement?

 

[Jennasis]

Here's my take on it. Tonalist basically took a "bye" in the Derby and Preakness and his owners are $800,000 richer for it. But is the sport richer? I think that this kind of discussion is good, even among part-time fans like myself. I was listening to the radio this morning and the host said that Tonalist was the Rose Ruiz of horse racing . I think that's a stretch since he didn't cheat, but he was certainly a spoiler.

I think it's interesting upthread where someone said that it's an advantage to have raced at Belmont prior to the Belmont Stakes. I wonder how the horses can do that when the race track is not open in the winter. Don't most of the horses run their big races in Florida and California as young 3-year olds?

Can you expand on that maybe? What are the horses bred for now that they were not 50 years ago?

1. Horses used to be run WAY more often. Training was more intense and the race schedule was heavier.

2. They are not being bred sturdy or built to last for the long haul. They are being bred for a short successful 3 year old career rather than having a long term race career.

 

[sam_gordon]

1. Horses used to be run WAY more often. Training was more intense and the race schedule was heavier.

2. They are not being bred sturdy or built to last for the long haul. They are being bred for a short successful 3 year old career rather than having a long term race career.

So does that mean the requirements for contests should be changed because owners/trainers changed how THEY do things? Why isn't anyone suggesting shortening the races? Wouldn't that increase the odds of a TC winner?

 

[Jennasis]

So does that mean the requirements for contests should be changed because owners/trainers changed how THEY do things? Why isn't anyone suggesting shortening the races? Wouldn't that increase the odds of a TC winner?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm explaining some of the reasons why a TC victory is very difficult now.

However, rules do evolve over time as things change. If a TC is that.important to the industry then changes will likely need to be made, whether it's at the training/breeding level (which will take many years to be effective) or to the races themselves.

 

[declansdad]

No way should anything be changed. That's how its been, and that's the way it should be. Imagine changing the rules for the superbowl or the world series just to get a certain outcome. No way.

But they have changed the rules for those sports, simply by adding wild card teams.


I agree with some others on here, if you are going to make it a series and crown a triple crown winner, you should have to race in all three.

 

[sam_gordon]

But they have changed the rules for those sports, simply by adding wild card teams.


I agree with some others on here, if you are going to make it a series and crown a triple crown winner, you should have to race in all three.

I would agree with you IF they built the series as a challenge to the horses. The first horse to win all three was in 1919, so less than 100 years ago. The Kentucky Derby is 140 years old, the Preakness is 139, and the Belmont is 146 years old. (side note: I didn't realize the Belmont was older than the Derby).

Obviously the races (with their own individual rules & regulations regarding entries & running) were around before someone called the group of them the "Triple Crown".

 

[declansdad]

I would agree with you IF they built the series as a challenge to the horses. The first horse to win all three was in 1919, so less than 100 years ago. The Kentucky Derby is 140 years old, the Preakness is 139, and the Belmont is 146 years old. (side note: I didn't realize the Belmont was older than the Derby).

Obviously the races (with their own individual rules & regulations regarding entries & running) were around before someone called the group of them the "Triple Crown".

Then don't call them the Triple Crown. It is sold as a series of race, if that's the case and they want to call the Triple Crown, make it an even playing field.

 

[sam_gordon]

Then don't call them the Triple Crown. It is sold as a series of race, if that's the case and they want to call the Triple Crown, make it an even playing field.

Isn't it sort of like the "Grand Slam" in Tennis or whatever it is when you win 4(?) majors in golf? Do those fans get upset and say "if you participate in one, you have to participate in all"?

 

[declansdad]

Isn't it sort of like the "Grand Slam" in Tennis or whatever it is when you win 4(?) majors in golf? Do those fans get upset and say "if you participate in one, you have to participate in all"?

Not the same at all, it isn't marketed as the Grand Slam (one series) or as The Majors winner.

 

[mikehn]

The three races are separate and distinct races. The triple crown is a bonus prize for winning all three races. In years where there is no single winner of the Derby and Preakness, there is no triple crown. The Belmont becomes moot. And nobody give a hoot about the belmont at that point. So changing the rules does nothing.

 

[PizzieDuster]

I am glad he apologized ~ to his wife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rZjFXXMYAc