Last 10 Preakness Winners. Oddity or Has Something Changed?

[smalltimer]

I find it very interesting the last 5 Preakness winners had NO negative numbers in their career prior to winning the Preakness. All these last 5 winners ran a winning Preakness number of 0 or higher, but none ran a negative number in winning the Preakness. For the last 5 years, the Kentucky Derby/Preakness winner(s) have had ZERO negative career numbers.  

I also find it interesting that in the 5 year period prior, ALL Preakness winners had ONE or MORE negative numbers in their career prior to winning the Preakness. With the exception of Rachel all these winners won with a negative number in the Preakness.  Rachel ran a 0 in winning the Preakness.

2014 CALIFORNIA CHROME NO negative numbers in career;
2013 Oxbow NO negative numbers in career;
2012 ILL HAVE ANOTHER  NO negative numbers in career;
2011 Shackleford NO negative numbers in career;
2010 Lookin at Lucky NO negative numbers in career.

2009 Rachel WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness;
2008 BIG BROWN WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness;
2007 Curlin WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness;
2006 Bernadini WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness;
2005 Alex WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness.

(California Chrome, I\'ll Have Another, Big Brown won Derby and Preakness).
What has caused this change? If I missed a number somewhere, I\'m sure someone will point it out.

[smalltimer]

Sorry to add an addendum to my own post.
The number of horses entering the Derby and the Preakness with previous negative numbers have shrunk substantially over the last 5 years compared to the previous 5 year period.

From 2010 to 2014 there were a total of 9 Derby entrants and only 6 Preakness entrants with a previous negative number.

From 2005 to 2009 there were a total of 18 Derby entrants and 19 Preakness entrants with a previous negative number.

The generic numbers show twice as many horses with previous negative numbers were entered in the Derby in the 2005-2009 years versus the last 5 years.

The generic numbers show three times as many horses with previous negative numbers were entered in the Preakness in the 2005-2009 years versus the last 5 years.

So, in the last 5 years, only 15 horses entered the Derby and Preakness with a previous negative number.

The previous 5 year period, 2005-2009 there were 37 horses entered in the Derby and Preakness with a previous negative number.

Sorry to get so convoluted.

[covelj70]

Some of this coincides with Steroids becoming illegal.  Can\'t prove it but have to think that\'s a very big part of this

[TGJB]

Probably. Far fewer big negs in general recently.

[Tavasco]

> 2014 CALIFORNIA CHROME NO negative numbers in career; SoCal
> 2013 Oxbow NO negative numbers in career; MidAm
> 2012 ILL HAVE ANOTHER  NO negative numbers in career; SoCal
> 2011 Shackleford NO negative numbers in career; EC-FL
> 2010 Lookin at Lucky NO negative numbers in career. SoCal
>
> 2009 Rachel WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness; MidAm
> 2008 BIG BROWN WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness; EC
> 2007 Curlin WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness; MidAm
> 2006 Bernadini WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness; EC
> 2005 Alex WITH previous negative numbers prior to winning Preakness. MidAM  EC

[smalltimer]

The reason I started up this path was due to the high number (5) horses that entered the Derby with negative numbers.  No big negative numbers, but -2,-0,-2,-1,-2.  That\'s the most horses with negative pre-Derby numbers over the last 10 years.  

From 2005-2009 the numbers of negative horses entered in Derby were, 4,4,3,4,3.

From the 2010-2014 drop-off in negative horses entered was 1,1,1,3,3.  And now this year there are 5.

Presuming AP ran a negative number, and there are as many, and more, horses with negatives, regarding the Derby, is the cycle reverting backwards, or might this be a one year anomaly?  I know one year indicates nothing, but the upward trend is mimicking the pre-2010 years.

As my Uncle Albert said, \"not all that can be counted counts, not all that counts can be counted.\"