Tom Chuckas on Preakness/TC Spacing

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What is so challenging is for a horse to be able to run close to his best 3 races in a row in a 5 weeks stretch. If you have the best horse, it's not that hard to win 3 races in a row against horses that you are better than. But one of the main reasons it is so tough to win these 3 races in 5 weeks is that most of these horses are knocked out after the first two legs. To come back and run 1 1/2 miles just 3 weeks later is insane. That is the main reason why no horse has done it in 36 years.

Well, since a portion of the thirty six years included horses who had no shot to win the tc because they lost the derby or Preakness, I cannot agree. A variety of things can cause the best horse to lose a race. I cannot believe you think it is not that hard to lose. Weather, track conditions, a shoe, a bad break, jockey error...hell, the bid was one of the best ever, he lost because of a bad ride. Riva ridge lost the tc in a sloppy Preakness. Risen star, third in the derb, won the latter two...afleet Alex did the same. Then there's the more recent years with three different winners, and faces scratching mornings of the race.
To blame lack of a crown on spacing is oversimplifying the whole thing. If you had horses most years winning the first two and losing the third, you might have a point.
Horses go to the Belmont about one third of the time with a tc shot. That means two thirds of the time, it was already a done deal and no tc on the line. For as many as you could find who say its spacing, you'd probably find as many wanting to shorten the Belmont...or more.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Well, since a portion of the thirty six years included horses who had no shot to win the tc because they lost the derby or Preakness, I cannot agree. A variety of things can cause the best horse to lose a race. I cannot believe you think it is not that hard to lose. Weather, track conditions, a shoe, a bad break, jockey error...hell, the bid was one of the best ever, he lost because of a bad ride. Riva ridge lost the tc in a sloppy Preakness. Risen star, third in the derb, won the latter two...afleet Alex did the same. Then there's the more recent years with three different winners, and faces scratching mornings of the race.
To blame lack of a crown on spacing is oversimplifying the whole thing. If you had horses most years winning the first two and losing the third, you might have a point.
Horses go to the Belmont about one third of the time with a tc shot. That means two thirds of the time, it was already a done deal and no tc on the line. For as many as you could find who say its spacing, you'd probably find as many wanting to shorten the Belmont...or more.

What I'm saying is that if there is a horse who is a standout in its division, it's not that hard to win 3 races in a row if the horse has plenty of rest between each race. It is obviously 100X tougher to win the TC than it would be for some grade I mare to win 3 in a row running once every 6 weeks. Three year olds are obviously a little more fragile and that is part of it, but the spacing is huge too. The spacing is huge and the distance of the Belmont is huge. I'm not advocating this but if the TC races were once every 5 weeks and the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles, the number of TC winners would rise dramatically. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What I'm saying is that if there is a horse who is a standout in its division, it's not that hard to win 3 races in a row if the horse has plenty of rest between each race. It is obviously 100X tougher to win the TC than it would be for some grade I mare to win 3 in a row running once every 6 weeks. Three year olds are obviously a little more fragile and that is part of it, but the spacing is huge too. The spacing is huge and the distance of the Belmont is huge. I'm not advocating this but if the TC races were once every 5 weeks and the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles, the number of TC winners would rise dramatically. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

why would we want the number of tc winners to rise dramatically? many think it draws more fans each year to see if it'll happen, that when/if it does happen, that it will actually produce less interest following it.
i don't get the pearl clutching over it.
if 3 yo's are more fragile, why would you want to make it easier for one to win this, thereby giving him a bigger following in the shed, thus breeding more fragility? makes no sense.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

why would we want the number of tc winners to rise dramatically? many think it draws more fans each year to see if it'll happen, that when/if it does happen, that it will actually produce less interest following it.
i don't get the pearl clutching over it.
if 3 yo's are more fragile, why would you want to make it easier for one to win this, thereby giving him a bigger following in the shed, thus breeding more fragility? makes no sense.

The reason I'd like to see an extra week between each race is not so we would get more TC winners, although it would result in more TC winners. The reason I'd like to see the extra week is because I think the current TC schedule is too hard on the horses. I don't like a series of races that will often times ruin a horse forever. It only took the first two legs to end the careers of Bodemeister and I'll Have Another. Mine That Bird was never the same. Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex were finished. The list goes on and on. Sure there are occasionally horses that run great in all 3 races and come out of it relatively unscathed. But I think that is the exception to the rule. The trainers are well aware of this and that is why so many trainers drop out after the first leg, skip the middle leg, or skip the Belmont. If there was an extra week between races there would still be guys that would skip races but I think the percentage would drop a little bit. If you put an extra 2 weeks between races, I think the percentage would drop much more.

The bottom line to me is that the TC races under the current schedule have ruined a large percentage of the horses that have run well in all 3 races. I don't think it should be that way. Yes, the TC should be demanding, but not to the point where it ends so many careers.

[Danzig]

Racing doesnt ruin their.careers. success, breeder demand, and disparity between pursrs ajd stud fees ruins their racing careers. Making easier racing only makes it easier for less hardy animals to do enough to get them into a shed, thus further hurting the breed itself. Two of last years classic winners remain in training.
Its funny, i saw a comment the other day that suggested will take charge would race too much this year.
Hmmm..
Just visited bloodhorse, with articles about verrazano, third in europe, and revolutionary who won the special. Those two, and others in the special ran in last years classics. With breeders going with tried and true studs right now, youre not seeing the demand for fresh faces in the barn...so they stay in training.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Racing doesnt ruin their.careers. success, breeder demand, and disparity between pursrs ajd stud fees ruins their racing careers. Making easier racing only makes it easier for less hardy animals to do enough to get them into a shed, thus further hurting the breed itself. Two of last years classic winners remain in training.
Its funny, i saw a comment the other day that suggested will take charge would race too much this year.
Hmmm..
Just visited bloodhorse, with articles about verrazano, third in europe, and revolutionary who won the special. Those two, and others in the special ran in last years classics. With breeders going with tried and true studs right now, youre not seeing the demand for fresh faces in the barn...so they stay in training.

Palace Malice is the only TC race winner from last year that's not retired and he didn't run in all 3 races. Orb and Oxbow are retired. Will Take Charge wasn't competitive in the Preakness (finished 7th) or Belmont (finished 10th). He got beat by a combined 45 lengths in the 3 TC races (although he did have an excuse in the Derby). I was specifying horses that run in all 3 TC races and run well in all 3 races. Verrazano only ran in one TC race.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Palace Malice is the only TC race winner from last year that's not retired and he didn't run in all 3 races. Orb and Oxbow are retired. Will Take Charge wasn't competitive in the Preakness (finished 7th) or Belmont (finished 10th). He got beat by a combined 45 lengths in the 3 TC races (although he did have an excuse in the Derby). I was specifying horses that run in all 3 TC races and run well in all 3 races. Verrazano only ran in one TC race.

Oh, so the spacing is only taxing if you're competitive. And the ones who win typically are given very little chance to follow up because no one wants a dirty resume hitting the stud fee too much.
Yeah, you're right. A bigger break would guarantee more starts for classic winners.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Racing doesnt ruin their.careers. success, breeder demand, and disparity between pursrs ajd stud fees ruins their racing careers.

This is correct in so many cases, including Smarty Jones.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't like a series of races that will often times ruin a horse forever. It only took the first two legs to end the careers of Bodemeister and I'll Have Another. Mine That Bird was never the same. Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex were finished. The list goes on and on. Sure there are occasionally horses that run great in all 3 races and come out of it relatively unscathed. But I think that is the exception to the rule. The trainers are well aware of this and that is why so many trainers drop out after the first leg, skip the middle leg, or skip the Belmont. If there was an extra week between races there would still be guys that would skip races but I think the percentage would drop a little bit. If you put an extra 2 weeks between races, I think the percentage would drop much more.

The bottom line to me is that the TC races under the current schedule have ruined a large percentage of the horses that have run well in all 3 races. I don't think it should be that way. Yes, the TC should be demanding, but not to the point where it ends so many careers.

Rupert, injuries are all too common, regardless of spacing. I'd have to see an objective counting of horses that ran well in all 3 TC races to see if they were more likely to have a career-ending injury than horses that skipped running. Easy Goer, Sunday Silence, Bet Twice, Alysheba (he may not have run his best race in the Belmont, but I don't think you can say he didn't run hard!), Curlin, Hard Spun, War Emblem, and, Silver Charm are horses I can think of off the top of my head that ran on well.

As often happens, I liked Beyer's take on the 2-week Preakness gap, which was written before the Chukas comments, including this bit about Normandy Invasion passing up last year's Preakness:

"When he opted to skip the Preakness last year with Normandy Invasion, Porter said, “Our goal is to have a fresh horse” for races at Saratoga in August. But after passing up a golden chance to win a Triple Crown race, Normandy Invasion developed a foot abscess that prevented him from running at Saratoga; he was out of action for the remainder of his 3-year-old year."


--Dunbar

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

This is correct in so many cases, including Smarty Jones.



Rupert, injuries are all too common, regardless of spacing. I'd have to see an objective counting of horses that ran well in all 3 TC races to see if they were more likely to have a career-ending injury than horses that skipped running. Easy Goer, Sunday Silence, Bet Twice, Alysheba (he may not have run his best race in the Belmont, but I don't think you can say he didn't run hard!), Curlin, Hard Spun, War Emblem, and, Silver Charm are horses I can think of off the top of my head that ran on well.

As often happens, I liked Beyer's take on the 2-week Preakness gap, which was written before the Chukas comments, including this bit about Normandy Invasion passing up last year's Preakness:

"When he opted to skip the Preakness last year with Normandy Invasion, Porter said, “Our goal is to have a fresh horse” for races at Saratoga in August. But after passing up a golden chance to win a Triple Crown race, Normandy Invasion developed a foot abscess that prevented him from running at Saratoga; he was out of action for the remainder of his 3-year-old year."


--Dunbar

I know for a fact that Smarty Jones was in no condition to run again. I don't know where you're getting your information from.

Beyer has no idea what the condition of Normandy Invasion was after the Derby. I don't either but I can tell you that NI is not a horse that carries a ton of weight and he's not the type of horse you would want to run back in two weeks. Chad Brown is well aware of that. He's one of the best trainers in the country. I think Chad Brown has a pretty good idea of when one of his horses needs a rest.

You are right that even if you give a horse plenty of time between races the horse may still get hurt. Does that mean you shouldn't give the horse plenty of time between races? That's like saying you might as well drive drunk because plenty of sober people have accidents too. The more a horse is fatigued, the greater his chance of injury.

I am well aware that horses used to run every couple of weeks 50 years ago. I don't know why they can't do it any more but they can't. I've seen it first hand with hundreds of horses. It's hard enough to keep a horse sound running just once every 4-5 weeks. If you start running every 2-3 weeks, your horse will be toast very quickly.

As I've said before, if horses could run 20 times a year and stay sound and keep in good form, trainers would run them 20 times a year. Trainers are human. They like money.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The reason I'd like to see an extra week between each race is not so we would get more TC winners, although it would result in more TC winners. The reason I'd like to see the extra week is because I think the current TC schedule is too hard on the horses. I don't like a series of races that will often times ruin a horse forever. It only took the first two legs to end the careers of Bodemeister and I'll Have Another. Mine That Bird was never the same. Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex were finished. The list goes on and on. Sure there are occasionally horses that run great in all 3 races and come out of it relatively unscathed. But I think that is the exception to the rule. The trainers are well aware of this and that is why so many trainers drop out after the first leg, skip the middle leg, or skip the Belmont. If there was an extra week between races there would still be guys that would skip races but I think the percentage would drop a little bit. If you put an extra 2 weeks between races, I think the percentage would drop much more.

The bottom line to me is that the TC races under the current schedule have ruined a large percentage of the horses that have run well in all 3 races. I don't think it should be that way. Yes, the TC should be demanding, but not to the point where it ends so many careers.

Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex and Bodemeister all had injuries that would have healed and allowed them to come back to racing. We know why they were retired. I'll Have Another as well. Mine That Bird was only good for 2 weeks in his whole career anyway. His post TC races were still far better than his Pre TC races.

Let's be honest here the TC ends careers of the best horses because of the low bar required to become a hot stallion prospect these days.

[LARHAGE]

It takes an exceptional horse to win the Triple Crown because while they may not necessarily be great horses they have to be at the very least very good and more importantly very sound, these are the horses that we should be excited to see adding to the gene pool, not the brilliant but fragile horses we have been breeding the last 30 years, there are lots of great horses that endured the Triple Crown trail and still went on to even more impressive careers , including the last two Triple Crown winners, both had extraordinary 4 year old campaigns, I personally don't want to see a Triple Crown winner every 3 years or so, the accomplishment is special because of how hard it is !!!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex and Bodemeister all had injuries that would have healed and allowed them to come back to racing. We know why they were retired. I'll Have Another as well. Mine That Bird was only good for 2 weeks in his whole career anyway. His post TC races were still far better than his Pre TC races.

Let's be honest here the TC ends careers of the best horses because of the low bar required to become a hot stallion prospect these days.

I'll Have Another had a bowed tendon. Afleet Alex had a condylar fracture. Can horses like these possibly come back from such injuries. It is possible but the chances of them ever being the same horse are not good. I Want Revenge eventually made it back and he wasn't anything close to the same horse. If that is your definition of being able to come back again, then I agree with you. You can try to bring practically any horse back. But if a horse has a serious injury, is worth $15 million, and is 50/50 at best to ever be the same horse, it doesn't make much sense to try to come back. They actually did try to bring Afleet Alex back and he got hurt again.

Mine That Bird was a very good horse as a 2 year old. I believe he won about 3 or 4 races in a row including a couple of stakes races.

Anyway, this whole argument has strayed from my original point. My original point was that having these 3 TC races in 5 weeks is extremely hard on the horses. It knocks them out and puts them at a much higher risk for injury than if these races were spaced further apart. If you talk to any of these guys (Pletcher, Baffert, etc.) who have run in these races on a regular basis, they will all tell you the same thing. I don't remember the exact quote but someone was saying that Baffert was quoted as saying that after the TC when you get to the barn and you look at your horse, you hardly even recognize the horse because he is so skinny and so knocked out.