http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8246534
pricci says today\'s horses run \"over faster surfaces with much less top soil to cusion the pounding of hooves than those over which 1952 derby winner hill grace faced.\" ...... did swaps and round table run 10f in 1:58 and change back in the \'50\'s over surfaces that were much slower than today\'s? did pricci do his homework for this assignment?
\"No less a Triple Crown presence than trainer Bob Baffert joked before the Preakness: "I'm rooting against Afleet Alex. If he wins, my owners are going to want me to send their horses out twice a day."\"
I found this quote by Baffert particularly amusing considering he probably ranks near the top of the list of trainers that breaks down high quality promising young horses with extremely fast regular workouts between starts. Maybe he should try two gallops per day and an occasional breeze. A lower percentage of his potential champions might fall apart before they really even get started.
I read it asfuth. It must be a terrible burden to be a writer to have to create in order to fill column requirements.
Pricci\'s \"position\" is this: The modern horse is not up to the rigors of the Triple Crown thus we must change the format of the Triple Crown to enable the Modern Bred horse to win the Triple Crown.
It is true that there has not been a Triple Crown Winner since 1978 and that the public image of horseracing certainly could benefit (now, more than ever), from an inspiring horse. But, do you tinker with tradition and what makes anyone think tinkering will further separate the horses? We\'ve come very close to Triple Crown winners in recent years and Pricci might consider asking himself: \"Was it \"close\" racing that has prevented a recent Triple Winner or has it been the competition?\"
2005- Alex almost did it, but that sick run Rebel and Derby Trip conspired to deny him.
2004- Smarty Jones, Jockey error, pace and being a little lightly bred for 12 marks denied him from being compared to Seattle Slew. In the very end, should he have been mentioned with the great Slew? Would Slew have overcome that Belmont?
2003- Funny Cide was a game Derby winner. He\'s just been erratic since the Preakness and no one would consider him great.
2002- War Emblem may have won that Belmont had he not stumbled at the break. If he had would he deserve mention in the same breath as Affirmed?
2001- Point Given and Gary Stevens have a pace brain fart in the Derby. Point Given is coming in on a good juvenile campaign, but having run a little light as a 3YO and maybe he wasn\'t toughened up enough. Still he almost did it. Would race spacing have enabled him one more prep and if it did what about the pace miscalcuation?
1999- Charismatic was awful close. He was already beaten when he broke down though.
1998- Real Quiet got nipped by Victory Gallop. Which was the better horse? Would race spacing have enabled one to sweep?
1997- Silver Charm was probably beaten by Touch Gold\'s wide ride. Would Charm have let Touch Gold by eyeball to eyeball? Probably not. Did race spacing have anything to do with it?
Do these results support Pricci\'s hypothesis? And if you do tamper with the race spacing to coddle weakly bred modern horses, does that inure ultimately to the betterment of the animal and the betterment of racing?
Creativity is a terrible burden to earn a check.
Actually, the should reverse what he recomends, I think the Belmont used to be the first Saturday of June and that\'s what they should do. Only healthy horses can go from the Derby, Preakness onto the Belmont. With only 2 wks from Preakness, no horse from the Preakenss undercard(Sarava) would try Belmont unless they are really good. Also, Zito, Frankel would be less inclined to bring their Derby horses on such \"quick \" rest. This nonsense about rest is ridiculous, horses can run and win on 1 week\'s rest in GR 1 races all over the world, without the benefit of LASIX and all the other drugs that are used today(Maykbe Diva is a prime example).
OPM:
Recently, Godolphin\'s Shamardal won the French Derby and nine days later won the Saint James Palace Stakes at the Royal Ascot meet. btw: he\'s undefeated on the sod and wouldn\'t be surprised to see him at Belmont Park for the BC Mile.
I tend to think turf racing is a little less demanding than dirt racing, but I agree with you.
IMO, if a horses is sharp you are actually \"better off\" bringing him back quickly. I think a quick comeback actually increases the probability that the horse is still sharp and his form hasn\'t changed. I think one of the problems today is that certain very prominent trainers work their horses very fast and very often between starts. They get worn out and broken down in the mornings in an effort to get them really sharp for a big race every 6 weeks. \"Perhaps\" by racing less frequently you can get an extra peak effort or two, but if you are killing them in the mornings as part of that process you\'ll probably have a broken down horse before you get there or race only 3-5 times a year.
It always seemed to me that the best way to get results was with a more active racing schedule and a less speedy and vigorous WO schedule (more gallops and slow breezes and less bullets).
Sharmadal, there was another horse at Ascot that won on Tuesday and Sat. I agree that certain trainers kill horses in the AM, especially out in CA. I think if you look at all the horses who were going for the TC, only Silver Charm and maybe Real Quiet was a great horse. The other were good. Smarty is a question mark. I think Afleet will be considered a great hoss but the bastard couldn\'t win the Derby when I had in the pk 4 and he had a perfect pace set-up so how great can you be!!!!