| Danzig |
06-13-2009 07:36 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
I have absolutely zero interest in increasing the fan base. I don't suggest that the changes be made for that reason at all. I know that you don't think that the rigors of the series has anything to do with the high number of premature retirements but I think it does. Not just the series but the entire prep season. As I've said before, ideally I'd like them to keep things the way they are to breed a sturdier horse that can withstand tough training and racing. But I feel like that horse has left the barn and isn't coming back. So that's why I think the races need to fit the horses and the training. Horses end up with more injuries now because they aren't built or conditioned to do this anymore. Sure, some of the injuries don't have to be career ending (Smarty or Empire Maker for example) and of course, the lure of the millions in the breeding shed has as big an impact on some of the decisions as the injuries do. But there are also lots of legitimate injuries, more than I remember seeing even 10 years ago. I feel that shortening the races would make them a little bit more competitive (based on my belief that more horses would actually fit the conditions of the race better and the more horses that can fit the conditions and be competitive, the harder a race is to win). I feel that spacing the races out more would fall in line with what a lot of the trainers feel is best for the horses and would encourage more of them to run back in all three races. Along with spacing them out, I'd re-institute the old bonus system for performances in all three races. I'd limit the number of entries into the races so that only the best performing horses from the preps get in and decrease the chances of bad racing luck causing deserving horses of a chance. I'd institute bonuses to races after the TC to add purse increases to races that attract the top performing TC horses. I think these things would help stem the tide of so many of the Derby also-rans skipping the Preakness and would help keep the same horses running more throughout the series which would help with name recognition for the fans that do watch them. And I do think it would lead to more horses making it through the series and continuing on because of less injuries. I think it would make for better races in the series, especially in the Belmont because horses would be able to come back and run their best instead of their worst because they are so worn out.
|
but you're operating under the assumption that the horses are dropping out and not running late at three and at four due to injury, due to racing knocking them out.
my contention is that for most of these horses, their successes are what's bringing up premature retirement because their stud fees outweight the risk and reward of racing.
if you made the derby shorter, lengthened the time between that and the preakness, and then shortened the belmont and spaced it out..and a horse won two, or all three. you really think that horse will be around for the bcc, or run at four? no way.
if anything, the breed is better served by having a horse who withstood the rigors of a spring campaign and did well in the classics going to stud with all the hype-they did exactly what you're asking for. they most likely could go on and win more, but they don't want to chance a loss and a tarnishing of their record, so off to stud a horse goes. but he showed an ability to run in the spring, and to succeed in the tc. what you want to do would showcase horses without abilitiy to withstand rigorous racing.
look at mdo and birdstone. they didn't get knocked out by the tc, and both ran and won after.
smarty and afleet alex both had done well before the tc, did well in those races, so their connections felt no need to run them after, to risk them-they had done what was needed to get their lucrative retirement. there was no real reason those horses couldn't run on later-except money. |
