Current TC Spacing Dates Back to 1969

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Why is smarty still being brought up? I thought chuck explained his injury, that it wasn't that serious.
Smarty was retired for one reason, and it wasn't cartilage. He didn't run again for a reason, and its green.

Plenty of horses disprove what one horse is being used to prove.

Chuck never explained his injury. Dunbar posted an article where Dr. Bramlage said the horse had swelling in his ankles and he needed time off. He said the horse could have come back the next year. I don't necessarily believe it. The vet has no obligation to the public in a case like this. His obligation is to the owner and trainer of the horse. When a horse is going to stand at stud, the owners don't want the vet to announce that the horse is very unsound and can never come back.

How could you possibly claim that the horse had no cartilage damage in his ankles? You would have no way of knowing that. You can't believe everything that you read. The public comments that you read from owners and trainers is often times bs. I'm not just guessing that. I know that for a fact. I've seen it first hand. For example, they will often say publicly that a horse has a foot bruise when they have something much more serious.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Chuck never explained his injury. Dunbar posted an article where Dr. Bramlage said the horse had swelling in his ankles and he needed time off. He said the horse could have come back the next year. I don't necessarily believe it. The vet has no obligation to the public in a case like this. His obligation is to the owner and trainer of the horse. When a horse is going to stand at stud, the owners don't want the vet to announce that the horse is very unsound and can never come back.

How could you possibly claim that the horse had no cartilage damage in his ankles? You would have no way of knowing that. You can't believe everything that you read. The public comments that you read from owners and trainers is often times bs. I'm not just guessing that. I know that for a fact. I've seen it first hand. For example, they will often say publicly that a horse has a foot bruise when they have something much more serious.

Oh, well why listen to an esteemed vet when I have you to tell me?
Smarty retired due to money. They had already maximized his value for breeding.
What I fail to understand is how the tc spacing had anything whatsoever to do with smartys ankle issues.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Let me ask you guys a simple question. If the spacing is not the main thing that makes it so difficult to win the TC, then what is? It's not that hard for the best horse in a division to win the 3 races in a row. It happens all the time. It happens with 2 year olds, three year olds, 4 year olds, older horses, colts, fillies, grass horses, etc. It's not uncommon for the best horse in a division to win three races in a row. It happens all the time.

Yet no horse has won the TC in 36 years and everybody knows how difficult it is to win the TC. If it's not the spacing that makes it so difficult, then what is it? I'm not saying the spacing is the only thing but it is the main thing. The other thing that makes it so difficult is the distance of the Belmont. If the Belmont was shorter, it would certainly be easier to win the TC. Of the last 12 horses that won the first two legs, I think at least a couple of them may have won the TC if the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let me ask you guys a simple question. If the spacing is not the main thing that makes it so difficult to win the TC, then what is? It's not that hard for the best horse in a division to win the 3 races in a row. It happens all the time. It happens with 2 year olds, three year olds, 4 year olds, older horses, colts, fillies, grass horses, etc. It's not uncommon for the best horse in a division to win three races in a row. It happens all the time.

Yet no horse has won the TC in 36 years and everybody knows how difficult it is to win the TC. If it's not the spacing that makes it so difficult, then what is it? I'm not saying the spacing is the only thing but it is the main thing. The other thing that makes it so difficult is the distance of the Belmont. If the Belmont was shorter, it would certainly be easier to win the TC. Of the last 12 horses that won the first two legs, I think at least a couple of them may have won the TC if the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles.

You said before you didn't want it to be easier, that you were worried about horses careers.
But all your postings indicate your main concern, more tc winners.


And yes, smarty raced nine times in eight months. Still not an indication that tc spacing was the issue.
You want more tc winners, which you is fine. We all want to see tc winners. So own it, instead of trying to make arguments that have nothing to do with it.

As for it not being hard to win three in a row...

Wow, just wow. So many things are involved in a race. The hell it isn't hard.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

You said before you didn't want it to be easier, that you were worried about horses careers.
But all your postings indicate your main concern, more tc winners.


And yes, smarty raced nine times in eight months. Still not an indication that tc spacing was the issue.
You want more tc winners, which you is fine. We all want to see tc winners. So own it, instead of trying to make arguments that have nothing to do with it.

As for it not being hard to win three in a row...

Wow, just wow. So many things are involved in a race. The hell it isn't hard.

The two things go hand in hand. The reason the TC is so hard to win is because it is so grueling. The more grueling and demanding, the higher chance of horses being knocked out and/or injured.

With regard to stakes horses winning three races in a row, there have probably been over 100 of them over the last 35 years. It happens all the time. Sure it's hard, but it's all relative. It happens all the time.

Anyway, I have given you my hypothesis as to why it's so hard to win the TC. What is your hypothesis? We see the top horses in their division winning three in a row all the time. Why is winning three in a row in the TC so hard?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The two things go hand in hand. The reason the TC is so hard to win is because it is so grueling. The more grueling and demanding, the higher chance of horses being knocked out and/or injured.

With regard to stakes horses winning three races in a row, there have probably been over 100 of them over the last 35 years. It happens all the time. Sure it's hard, but it's all relative. It happens all the time.

Anyway, I have given you my hypothesis as to why it's so hard to win the TC. What is your hypothesis? We see the top horses in their division winning three in a row all the time. Why is winning three in a row in the TC so hard?

I don't agree with the first paragraph.

I think one thing that makes it more difficult is the field size. You have to have more than talent to win the derby. Quite often the best horse in the field just can't get thru the crowd. You also need to take note of field size in subsequent races, genuine risk has referenced number of competitors more than once.
As for other top horses winning three straight. Put them in a 20 horse field, and then two races with ten or more horses. Let me know how that works for them.

Another thing...these horses are still maturing, spring is when you see horses blossom,and precocious horses get caught and passed by their peers.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I don't agree with the first paragraph.

I think one thing that makes it more difficult is the field size. You have to have more than talent to win the derby. Quite often the best horse in the field just can't get thru the crowd. You also need to take note of field size in subsequent races, genuine risk has referenced number of competitors more than once.
As for other top horses winning three straight. Put them in a 20 horse field, and then two races with ten or more horses. Let me know how that works for them.

Another thing...these horses are still maturing, spring is when you see horses blossom,and precocious horses get caught and passed by their peers.

Good point. I admit field size is one factor. But that can hardly be the main factor that explains the difficulty of winning the TC. It is only the Derby that has a 20 horse field. So just 1 out of 3 of the races has a 20 horse field.

If Wise Dan had to run in a 20 horse field once every 3 races, do you think he would have never won 3 in a row? If Zenyatta would have had to run in a 20 horse field once every 3 races, do you think she would have never won 3 in a row? I would ask the same thing about Curlin, Ghostzapper, Rachel Alexandra, and about 100 other horses over the past 35 years that have won 3 or more races in a row. Would these horses and all the other horses that have had multi-race winning streaks have had fewer winning streaks if they had to run against 20 horse fields in 1 out of every 3 races. The answer is positively "yes". They wouldn't have won quite as often but they certainly would have still had some streaks where they won 3 in a row.

You are right that horses are maturing in spring. But come on, how much maturing is going to take place in 3 weeks (between the Preakness and Belmont)? If a horse wins the first two legs, he is probably the best horse. There are probably only 3 things that can get him beat in the Belmont. The first thing would be if the horse is tired from winning the first two legs and he doesn't fire in the Belmont. The second would be the distance. Maybe the horse just can't go 1 1/2 miles. The third would be a bad ride/trip.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

What I fail to understand is how the tc spacing had anything whatsoever to do with smartys ankle issues.

To quote Dr. Bramlage, "He had nine hard races in eight months, and this kind of accumulated inflammation is why athletes can't stay at a peak every time."

Do you notice that he mentioned the number of races and the time period that those races were run in? He mentioned that for a reason. It's not uncommon for horses to come out of races with inflammation. But if you give them time to recover, the inflammation usually goes down. If you have to keep running the horse back on short rest, that inflammation can become chronic.