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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I don't think spacing had anything to do with the last ten horses vying for the TC after winning the first two races, failing to complete the sweep.

Just off the top of my head...

Alysheba got beat by a mile due to having a dumb ride, plus he got beat by a horse that also ran in all three races.

Sunday Silence got trounced by a Belmont track freak, whom also ran in all three races.

Silver Charm got beat by a better horse (at least in my eyes, he had more ability) that was unlucky to lose to Silver Charm in the Preakness.

Real Quiet made that crazy early move, and lost to a horse that also ran in all three races.

Charismatic, possibly, but he was trained by Lukas.

Funny Cide was fortunate to win the Derby, and got beat in the Belmont by a horse of considerably better quality.

Smarty Jones got Bailey'd in the Belmont.

War Emblem had that bad start in the Belmont, but who knows.

Big Brown, he looked like a horse in bad trouble towards the end of the Preakness. Would he have benefited from another week or two, maybe!

I'll Have Another???

I don't think Alysheeba's loss had anything to do with the ride. He was sitting about 2-3 lengths behind Bet Twice and he got beat by 15 lengths. He did check just before the 1/4 pole but he was already hopelessly beaten. He didn't have any horse.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Here is the last bit that I have: in 1957, the Belmont was 28 days after the Preakness (which was two weeks after the Derby, which didn't stop Bold Ruler from running in a Pimlico allowance race five days before the Preakness), so maybe 1958 was the first year of the current spacing.

Without looking back at the winners before Whirlaway, I'd say that Secretariat was the first Triple Crown winner to run on the current schedule.

With all of this historical reporting, I am starting to feel like DrugS.

Enjoy the Preakness.

(DRF's "Champions" is a great instant tool for a question like Dunbar's.)

Thanks for doing the research! I would have guessed that the current spacing was in place for Citation and Whirlaway. Did either of them have a race in between the Preakness and the Belmont?

--Dunbar

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Thanks for doing the research! I would have guessed that the current spacing was in place for Citation and Whirlaway. Did either of them have a race in between the Preakness and the Belmont?

--Dunbar

citation ran between preakness/belmont. not sure of whirlaway.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

In general, the harder a horse runs, the more tired he's going to be and the more rest he will need. I don't think the TC races took as much out of Will Take Charge as they did out of Oxbow. Oxbow ran much harder in the TC races. In general, when a horse doesn't run a lick, he's not going to be as tired as a horse who ran really hard.

You are right that after a horse wins the Derby, the connections are going to be very selective in the races they choose. That is a totally different issue from horses getting hurt and not being able to run again. If you have a horse that wins one or two of the TC races, you're still going to want to see your horse run in the BC Classic and maybe a couple of other big races like The Travers. There could be a case of some huge stud deal and a sound horse retiring but I can't think of any such cases in the last 30 years. Most horses who were retired were retired because of injury. Do you think Oxbow could have run again? Do you think I'll Have Another could have run again? The answer is "no" on those two. How about Bodemeister? Possibly, the following year.

Sure there may have been a few horses where the vet told the connections that the horse might be able to come back the following year. But in most of those cases, it's not really worth the risk if the horse has good value as a stallion. An example would be Bodemeister. If I remember correctly, I think he had some nerve injury in his shoulder. That's a little bit of an unusual injury and I think the prognosis on that is questionable. It could go either way. He might come back 100%. It's probably 50/50. The horse is worth about $10 million as a stallion. Would you really want to roll the dice and bring him back as a 4 year old when he may not even be the same horse? In a situation like that, most owners are probably going to retire the horse.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Larry Bramlage, via Steve Haskin, from http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/horse...s-goodbye.aspx

"It actually was a quote from noted veterinarian Larry Bramlage that ignited the controversy. Bramlage said of Smarty’s chronic bruising in the joints of all four ankles, “The risks are minor. We bring horses back from this injury all the time.”

Rupert, how do you know it "for a fact". Did you examine him, or are you relying on someone else's opinion?

Robert Clay, the owner of Three Chimneys, later claimed the injuries were more severe. But at the time of the retirement, Beyer quoted Clay as saying,

"Economics always plays into any decision," acknowledged Robert Clay, owner of Three Chimneys Farm in Kentucky, where Smarty Jones will spend his stud career. And the economics of modern-day breeding and racing usually dictate that good horses go to the breeding shed as soon as possible.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Aug2.html)

Also, the statements from both Chapmans at the time of the retirement did not make it sound like it was a black/white retirement decision. It was a "difficult" decision, implying that it was not 100% obvious:

from ESPN:

"This has been a very difficult decision," Patricia Chapman said on a conference call with racing writers. "We know that the public, not just the racing fans, wanted to see him run again. But if anything else went wrong, it would break our hearts."

Roy Chapman, who also bred the colt, agreed. "I'm just heartsick about it, but I think we're making the right decision to retire him."

The common ankle injuries are neither life-threatening nor career-threatening, according to Dr. Larry Bramlage, one of the world's most esteemed veterinary surgeons. Bramlage called Smarty Jones' problems "relatively minor" and traced them to the stress of nine races in eight months, including seven in five months from early January through the Belmont Stakes in early June.

"Prognosis for a full recovery is excellent," Bramlage said. "There's really nothing to worry about. 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.

"There are no structural problems, and the injury would have cleared up with rest.""

I'm not saying the injury wasn't real. I'm just saying what Clay said at the time. That money played into the decision.

http://espn.go.com/horse/news/2004/0802/1850769.html

--Dunbar

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Larry Bramlage, via Steve Haskin, from http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/horse...s-goodbye.aspx

"It actually was a quote from noted veterinarian Larry Bramlage that ignited the controversy. Bramlage said of Smarty’s chronic bruising in the joints of all four ankles, “The risks are minor. We bring horses back from this injury all the time.”

Rupert, how do you know it "for a fact". Did you examine him, or are you relying on someone else's opinion?

Robert Clay, the owner of Three Chimneys, later claimed the injuries were more severe. But at the time of the retirement, Beyer quoted Clay as saying,

"Economics always plays into any decision," acknowledged Robert Clay, owner of Three Chimneys Farm in Kentucky, where Smarty Jones will spend his stud career. And the economics of modern-day breeding and racing usually dictate that good horses go to the breeding shed as soon as possible.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Aug2.html)

Also, the statements from both Chapmans at the time of the retirement did not make it sound like it was a black/white retirement decision. It was a "difficult" decision, implying that it was not 100% obvious:

from ESPN:

"This has been a very difficult decision," Patricia Chapman said on a conference call with racing writers. "We know that the public, not just the racing fans, wanted to see him run again. But if anything else went wrong, it would break our hearts."

Roy Chapman, who also bred the colt, agreed. "I'm just heartsick about it, but I think we're making the right decision to retire him."

The common ankle injuries are neither life-threatening nor career-threatening, according to Dr. Larry Bramlage, one of the world's most esteemed veterinary surgeons. Bramlage called Smarty Jones' problems "relatively minor" and traced them to the stress of nine races in eight months, including seven in five months from early January through the Belmont Stakes in early June.

"Prognosis for a full recovery is excellent," Bramlage said. "There's really nothing to worry about. 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.

"There are no structural problems, and the injury would have cleared up with rest.""

I'm not saying the injury wasn't real. I'm just saying what Clay said at the time. That money played into the decision.

http://espn.go.com/horse/news/2004/0802/1850769.html

--Dunbar

Even if my info is wrong, what Dr. Bramlage said totally contradicts your theory that horses can run every 2-3 weeks. Bramlage said, "He had 9 hard races in 8 months and this kind of accumulated inflammation is why athletes can't stay at peak every time."

I've been trying to tell you that for 10 years and you keep telling me that horses can run every 2-3 weeks with no ill effects. With regard to Smarty Jones specifically, one of the guys who was involved in negotiating the syndication deal, told me that Smarty's ankles were so shot that he hardly and any cartilage left. I guess some people would probably keep running a $10,000 claimer in similar condition but it's probably not a good idea for a horse who is worth $30 million or whatever he was worth at the time.

[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.