Idea for Post Position
 

I think Orb was badly compromised by the #1 post.

How about letting the Derby winner have the choice of Post Position in the Preakness as a reward for winning the Derby? Why should it be random?

The triple crown races are like playoffs, a winner should get some advantage in the next round, since it can't be a "home court " or "home field", how about a post postion pick?

THe best horses should not have to rely on random luck in the Preakness/Belmont post position draws.

Then allow the Preakness winner to have post position choice in the Belmont with the Derby winner second choice. That also might encourage the owners to run even in non triple crown races.

Just my thoughts...but I do not see any downside to it

He did not lose because of the 1 hole....Not at all.

He was in position and simply had no kick yesterday.

and the slow fractions played against Orb.......

maybe
 

Maybe post had no effect, but we will never know, but I still think the Derby winner should get to pick the post the trainer wants as a reward for winning.

Maybe they could all get trophies for participating too!

Why not just let the Derby winner have a head start?
Why not give the Super Bowl winner the number 1 pick in the draft?

:tro:

:tro:


I did get a smile thinking about letting the Derby winner pick it's own Preakness post. I wonder what Orb would have done if left to his own devices 30 feet behind the starting gate. Which post would Orb have chosen, given a light tap on the rump?

--Dunbar

Why stop there, why not just let the Derby winner win? This way we will always have a triple crown on the line!

But then, why not just let them win the Belmont too?

Horses from the West Coast should only have to win the Derby and Preakness to be considered Triple Crown winners. Flying over the Rockies ought to count as the first leg of the Triple Crown for them.

hell, just present the horses and let everyone vote. top vote getter wins. that way peta gets off racings back too. and every ticket would be a winner. yay, everyone wins!

:p

I don't like the idea and wouldn't support changing anything. Its a horse race and I think it is best to just select the post positions as they do in every other race.

But, that being said, the reaction to the suggestion here seems a bit over the top. Let's say they did make the change suggested....who cares? It wouldn't affect much. How often does post position really play a big role in the Preakness? We aren't talking about a 9f race at GP, or the 20-horse field of the Derby, where post position is often determinative.

So, there's no real point in doing it, but there's no real harm either.

People get so desperate for a Triple Crown winner they come up with the craziest things. Why try to water down the achievement or the challenge? Let them earn it the traditional way like everyone else did. Orb flat out lost. He ran a great and his best race in the Derby. But it was just one race and the Preakness was a totally different condition in many ways.

There is an old sayin' "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I am a newbie no doubt but post selection has been a part of this game and handicapping for a long time. Why should a process be modified to possibly increase the chances for a participent to gain an advantage.

It is supposed to be tough to win these things, regardless of the luck of the draw............... that's why they are called CHAMPIONS when they win.

:tro::tro:

The only change in post psoition draws I would support would be draw the Derby from highest points down...the horse that finishes with the most points leading up to the Derby has first draw, the 20th horse has last. IMO, it shouldnt be "luck of the draw" in the Derby...
Leave the Preakness and Belmont alone...post draw there isnt as significant...

There is quite a bit of chatter about post having little to do with the Preakness. Would a .018 winning pct from the 1 hole in the last 53 runnings (That is 1 out of 53) indicate that only horses that werent good enough have drawn that number? That is mathematically astounding.

I disagree and think it is really logical why this would be a problem. Inevitably, whether you agree or not, there will be those who will claim when the next triple crown winner comes around that they had an advantage that the previous triple crown winners did not, that the accomplishment is watered down and should come with an asterisk.

It seems like every year when people realize that there will not be a triple crown winner the calls come for changes to the rules. Winning the triple crown is an accomplishment that only the best horses can attain, they are the horses that can win despite whatever may be thrown at them. It is what makes the accomplishment so difficult and special.

I wanted Orb to win the Preakness, but at the end of the day, for whatever reason, whether it was the dynamics of the race, the fact that certain horses IMO were not run in the manner that gave them the best chance to win, or whether he simply is not good enough, Orb does not deserve to be amongst that elite group since he could not overcome the adversity thrown at him on Saturday.

I am glad that Lukas won the Preakness, maybe it will be a wakeup call to all trainers that the most likely way someone can accomplish this is by racing their horses into experienced horses that can handle adversity instead of babying them and keeping them in the barn when they should be racing on the track.

and i think most of the reaction here was posters building off previous posters comments, not the original idea itself.

but i don't agree that the derby winner should get first pick.

exactly my point, why not have random sites for playoff games then in basketball if the lead up games mean nothing....why have seeds in the NCAA tournament? Just have a random draw, everyone is equal and past performance means nothing for the big dance.

Just a suggestion folks, this is the problem with racing...new thoughts are attacked as stupid or mocked......
I recall the dime superfecta being mocked as well, until tracks figured out people liked the idea

hmm...53 years. Without looking this up, and I promise I haven't, I can be pretty sure that 54 years ago a horse won from the 1 hole. If true, it makes it 2 in 54 years, which is roughly only half as astounding as 1 in 53. :)

If there was a significant change in track configuration 53 years ago that warrants using 53 years as a cutoff, then that would justify using an odd number like 53.

--Dunbar