Andy Beyer on Triple Crown Spacing

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Initially it seemed Beyer was going to argue for changing the format.  However, it appears he feels like true race fans feel, which is that \"Changing the Format would cheapen the accomplishment and belittle what the great horses of the past achieved.\"

Hes right of course. It would also contribute to further weakening the breed.

 http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=74777&subs=0&arc=0

In another post someone asked \"If Barbaro survives and breeds, what kind of soundness will he pass on and if its questionable soundness, in light of that is his survival for the best?\"

That was a very poignant question and I have an opinion upon that but will refrain from voicing it. This can be said. \"Breeding to Barbaro would appear to be risky.\"

[imallin]

Every sport makes changes to create more scoring. I\'m not sure people care that it cheapens their accomplishments.

The TC format needs to be altered. How about the first jewel being the Derby, the 2nd jewel being the belmont and the third jewel being the travers and switch the travers from late august to the first week of the meet in late july as the TC. That way, horses would have plenty of time to heal.

one more thing...to change the TC format isn\'t all that bad in my opinion because the game has changed. If you change the format to space more time in between races, it will be equivalent to what the olden day stuff was.

Here\'s an analogy. When dime breakage was introduced, the did so because they didn\'t want to hold up betting lines with tellers paying out 2.21 or 3.76, etc.

Now, most everyone has a phone account...all that money goes directly into an account. Why should phn account holders be subject to that dime breakage when they aren\'t holding up betting lines cashing for 2.21? Thats why the rule was introduced, right? Well, if thats the only reason payouts were rounded down to dimes, people with phone accounts should get the full payout.

Back then, that was the game where EVERYONE had to be live and ontrack. now, since the game has changed, it wouldn\'t be so far fetched if they changed that rule too. Other than Steve Crist, no one seems to write about breakage in publications. We need more crists who care about these tracks skimming pennies off our payouts.

The game has changed, so to change the TC to conform to the modern T bred\'s training regimen and the modern T bred\'s fragility wouldn\'t be such a bad thing.

The bottom line with any change in any sport is to create more revenue for the sport. More scoring in the NBA or NFL studies have shown that creates more exciting games and with more exciting games comes more revenue for the league.

Would spacing TC races create more revenue? Personally i think the Preakness 2 weeks after the Derby is ridiculous. No one cares about the Preakness. There is a HUGE letdown after Derby day...no one cares about Pimlico other than pimlico.

[Silver Charm]

Andy is as wrong on this one as he was when he picked Barbaro to win the Criple Crown.

The fact that increased spacing provides the Derby winner more of an opportunity to rest, it also provides more of an opportunity to the late developing new shooters and other competitiors to get ready and rested also. Hence making the task more difficult.

Certainly attendance is an issue if it conflicts with the holiday schedule of the supporting community. However it is this kind of head-in-the-sand thinking from the Maryland Jockey Club that has had racing behind the curve for the last 40 years anyway.

The fact that Andy would use his bully pulpit on their behalf is a little disappointing to say the least.

[shanahan]

I can\'t support changing it...and here\'s why:

we seem to change the standards in this country to fit the situation.  I despise that.

Secondly, if athletes (horse) are indeed bigger and faster, doesn\'t that go against the argument to make it easier/more convenient?

Who\'s in the leadership in championing this?  and while we\'re at it, could we change the entrance requirements at Harvard?  Notre Dame? Yale?  Stanford?

The triple crown means something...just because no one won it for a while doesn\'t mean we should change the standards just so one can.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Andy is as wrong on this one as he was when he
> picked Barbaro to win the Criple Crown.
>
> The fact that increased spacing provides the Derby
> winner more of an opportunity to rest, it also
> provides more of an opportunity to the late
> developing new shooters and other competitiors to
> get ready and rested also. Hence making the task
> more difficult.
>
> Certainly attendance is an issue if it conflicts
> with the holiday schedule of the supporting
> community. However it is this kind of
> head-in-the-sand thinking from the Maryland Jockey
> Club that has had racing behind the curve for the
> last 40 years anyway.
>
> The fact that Andy would use his bully pulpit on
> their behalf is a little disappointing to say the
> least.

Between Citation and Secretariat 25 years went by without a triple crown winner. Then there were 3 Triple Crown Winners in 6 years.

Racing came very, very close to Triple Crown winners in 1997, 1998, 2004 and last year in my opinion. Afleet Alex was good enough. All that stopped him was a Rebel Stakes virus and a deep Churchill rail. You can interpret that Virus in the Regression equation if you wish as it was part of it.

There is nothing wrong with the Current Triple Crown spacing that a good horse and a little luck won\'t overcome. Changing the format will only weaken the breed as infirm six week first backers trained with drugs will be a Triple Crown Winning contenders and go off to stud with acclaim to produce even weaker and less robust runners for the classics until you\'re spacing them two months apart and running them at seven furlong marathons.  Additionally spacing will also impact the scheduling of every other major 3YO race including the Haskell, Travers and others.

Andy Beyer can\'t handicap to save his life, but he knows a little about the tradition of the game. And in this case we need to go back.

Back to the Future.

[catherine]

I\'m hoping this does not bring on a severe case of colic, but, here goes ...

CTC wrote \"However, it appears he feels like true race fans feel\" ...

Who the f%$! voted you the arbiter of what true race fans feel? If there is such a club, and if you decide what we all feel, I resign effective immediately!

Those \"true race fans\" feel that \"Changing the Format would cheapen the accomplishment and belittle what the great horses of the past achieved.\"

Claptrap! How does anything that happens today diminish what happened in 1973 or 1948? You would have to have the simplest of minds, the most feeble excuse for an intellect, to think that were so. Changing the spacing in 2007 might diminish the accomplishment ... in 2007 or 2008. But it would have no bearing on what was accomplished 33 or 58 years ago.

Calling you a miserable excuse for a human being would be a mistake. It cheapens the accomplishments of all the other miserable excuses for human beings.


 

 

[catherine]

Silver;

There is no better time to agree with you than when you are disagreeing with the Klown.

Klown \"wrote\" \'Between Citation and Secretariat 25 years went by without a triple crown winner. Then there were 3 Triple Crown Winners in 6 years.\'

Yes. And in those years Native Dancer and Northern Dancer did OK, as I recall. Whatever happened to them? I guess 2 out of 3 makes you a bum and 3 for 3 makes you Bucephalos? (not in spell check, damnit!). Was there supposed to be a point in there?

\"There is nothing wrong with the Current Triple Crown spacing that a good horse and a little luck won\'t overcome.\"

Yeah, it\'s great the way the TC chews up the best legs of each generation. It\'s nice we don\'t need to watch these horses (Silver\'s namesake and Victory Gallop being the \"recent\" exceptions) as 4YOs, even if their owners were otherwise obliged to be \"sports\". Hell, they can barely make it to the Travers or the BC already!

Silver, your point about spacing is spot-on. The TC is easier now because all the best horses take their shots in KY, skip the Preakness (unless they win the Derby), and maybe they show up in NY 3 weeks later. They have plenty of spacing in the British Triple Crown, and no one has won that three-fer in decades BECAUSE IT\'S TOO DAMN HARD!

Making something - arguably - less difficult does not make it easy. In what other race does a trainer take his best horse, and run him/her in Grade Ones two weeks apart? Does running the Wood two weeks earlier make the TC easier?

I\'m done. Thanks for letting me vent!

[catherine]

Shanahan;

Love your New Yorker cartoons! But this post???

\"Secondly, if athletes (horse) are indeed bigger and faster, doesn\'t that go against the argument to make it easier/more convenient?\"

This is the Thorograph board. If horses are indeed faster, doesn\'t the methodology here suggest that more - not less - spacing would be prudent?

 

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

catherine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'m hoping this does not bring on a severe case of
> colic, but, here goes ...
>
> CTC wrote \"However, it appears he feels like true
> race fans feel\" ...
>
> Who the f%$! voted you the arbiter of what true
> race fans feel? If there is such a club, and if
> you decide what we all feel, I resign effective
> immediately!
>
> Those \"true race fans\" feel that \"Changing the
> Format would cheapen the accomplishment and
> belittle what the great horses of the past
> achieved.\"
>
> Claptrap! How does anything that happens today
> diminish what happened in 1973 or 1948? You would
> have to have the simplest of minds, the most
> feeble excuse for an intellect, to think that were
> so. Changing the spacing in 2007 might diminish
> the accomplishment ... in 2007 or 2008. But it
> would have no bearing on what was accomplished 33
> or 58 years ago.
>
> Calling you a miserable excuse for a human being
> would be a mistake. It cheapens the
> accomplishments of all the other miserable excuses
> for human beings.
>
>

Dear Catherine,

Did you really attempt to apply logic to this debate?

Let me explain this in detail so the logic flows. Relax, I\'m a professional and have experience at this.

1. The greats of yesteryear ran 20 or more races for the most part. Many of them were multiple year champions. Great horses do that or at least they did, before the Triple Crown race spacing was changed. That last sentence was technique, try to hang in here and not become overly befuddled.

2. If a future Barbaro bred wins the Derby in late April, the Preakness in June and the Belmont in August, (at 1 and 3/16\'s miles by the way), they may call him the first Triple Crown Champion since Affirmed. To the young and inexperienced he will be the equal of Affirmed. After all, he won the Triple Crown just like Affirmed. Breeders will vie for the Stallion Services and millions in Syndication will be earned for the privilage of breeding to this Stamina specimen.

3. Old and experienced horse fans may understand that there is no comparison between Affirmed\'s exploits and Barbaro II\'s exploits, but they will be mentioned in the same breath and those drawn to the wonderful world of Horse racing will see them as having accomplished the same great feat.

4. The conclusion is coming so this is the important part where you pay close attention.

5. Knowledgeable horse fans will certainly understand that winning the Triple Crown in 2010 does not compare with winning the Triple Crown in 1978, however that won\'t be publicized by the Networks or media. Whats important to those folks is a Champion and obviously you can\'t have a champion without a Triple Crown winner, even if you have to manufacture that Triple Crown win to sell a story, draw the fans, or make a hype come true. No worries that it changes the feat of winning the Triple Crown and lessens what that current Triple Crown winner actually is.

6. This is the big finish now, if you\'re chewing gum set it aside for just a moment.

7. So in that regard will the Triple Crown mean as much as it use to and if not how can you call Barbaro II a Triple Crown winner? Or in other words, Did Mark McGwire really set the record for Home Runs in a season before Barry Bonds allegedly set the record for Home Runs in a season? And who today holds Babe Ruth and Roger Maris in as high regard for their single season accomplishments? Or in other words were their monumental accomplishments overcome by the changed circumstances of artiface?

Now, you can put the gum back in and nod your head like you really do understand.

Hope you didn\'t stay with Bro Derek for that Preakness. Although, you did seem to be going the right direction against him in the Derby. That is before you went with him, if I recall correctly.

[imallin]

I don\'t think that changing the TC spacing would be to create more TC winners. The most important thing is the health of the horse. Trainers are not responsible enough to skip the Preakness. Look at Hendricks. Why was he running in Pimlico? We need rules changes to protect the egomaniac Hendricks from ruining a really good horse like Bro Derek.

Hendricks wasn\'t responsible enough to skip that race. He let his ego in the way and wanted to go toe to toe w barbaro.

No matter how much spacing we have, it will still be very hard to win the TC.

By the Preakness being 2 weeks away from the Derby, its almost a \'freebie\' for the Derby winner. People say the spacing makes the TC tougher to win, but don\'t forget that if the Preakness was 5 weeks away (or 4) you\'d have 10 Derby also rans packing the gate for another go. The only people that are supposed to go to the Preakness are the Derby winner and new shooters. No Derby loser should be racing at Pimlico 2 weeks after the Derby. Any trainer subjecting a Derby loser to that race in Pimlico is dumb. He\'s going to ruin his horse. Did DH ruin BD? He\'s certainly trying.

Spacing would mean that a Derby winner would have to beat a 13 rivals at Pimlico and 13 rivals at Belmont and of course, 19 rivals in Ky.

So, yes, the spacing would be \'kinder\' for the Derby winner, but also kinder for the Derby losers.

What if the Preakness was 5 weeks away for Funny Cide? He may have had to face Empire Maker in that race. How would the TC have become easier for FC if EM ran at Pimlico? Thats just an example, i\'m sure there are many Derby winners who won by less than 2 lengths and the horse they beat didn\'t show up at Pimlico.

Also, lets face it, the TC isn\'t as impossible as people are making it out to seem.

If Real Quiet, Silver Charm and Smarty Jones were ridden by regular Belmont Park riders, they might have not been moved too soon and all win the TC. If all 3 of these win the TC, people aren\'t saying its impossible and the format needs to be changed.

Its not about the TC, its about the health of our best 3 year old stars. So, if the TC becomes easier, than it becomes easier.....our best stars will be better off anyway.

If it becomes easier, we benefit because our stars will stay around longer.

[gambler]

Beyer is just another media hack who is being paid to cover up the real issues by those with a financial interest to do so. If selective breeding is supposed to produce a better horse, then how come we\'ve gone from Kelso winning the JCGC at 2 miles under 130 pounds to runners who can barely stagger 10 furlongs? How come European runners can routinely race at 12-16 furlongs without breaking down? Maybe it\'s because they don\'t allow or tolerate drugs being given to their runners like they were M&Ms. Folks unless this industry can come to grips with the fact that the American Way of medicating and doping runners and breeding horses with roid-damaged genes is the crux of the problem, you will never solve the problem and you will continue to have more breakdowns. Americans like to think that they\'re the center of the horse racing world but it\'s becoming clear that it is now the bottom of the barrel.

[richiebee]

Imallin:

   \"Trainers are not responsible enough to skip the Preakness\"

Or the Derby for that matter. But a lot of these entries are owner driven. There seem to be 3YOs every year who are only contenders in the minds of their owners. D Wayne might be the only trainer who runs for the limelight. This year IMO Private Vow and Showing Up were good examples of owner driven Derby entries. If it were left up to Asmussen and Tagg, neither of these colts would have been pointed to or ran in the Derby.

Will be interested to see if SNS goes in the Belmont. He shouldn\'t. He has run hard in a long campaign covering the first five months of the year. He should be pointed to the Pa Derby or the Ohio Derby or even the Travers. If the owners want to go 1-1/2 miles with a gelding with no breeding value, Trombetta should \"just say no\".

(IMO SNS is beginning to remind me of Funny Cide. He will put up great numbers but will only win when spotted correctly. FC as a 4Y0 ran negative TGs in something like 8 of 11 races, but only won once that year).

   \"Any trainer subjecting a Derby loser to that race in Pimlico is dumb\"

Like Tim Ritchey?

    \"If (the Triple Crown) becomes easier, we benefit because our stars will stay around longer\".

Like until the Breeders Cup? Listen, business dictates that any colt who wins any or all legs of the Triple Crown will NOT race as a 4YO.

Imallin, I\'m getting a little picky but I commend you (and me) for submitting posts that don\'t contain the words \"condylar fracture\"

And while debate rages over the \"crack heard around the world\", racing still faces the following issues: Drugs; Stronachization; Polyestertrackization; not to mention the upcoming Saratoga meet, which will this year merely serve as the backdrop for the great East v West (Village) handicapping challenge.

(Is anybody monitoring Beyer #s during the Spa meet? I am NOT volunteering-- don\'t worry JB, you don\'t have to buy my \"tellie\" for 6 weeks)

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

imallin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hendricks wasn\'t responsible enough to skip that
> race. He let his ego in the way and wanted to go
> toe to toe w barbaro.

Bro Derek lunged at the gate after Barbaro unnerved him. He banged his noggin and then broke poorly. He rushed up and got into contention. He did round out the Super.

 Any trainer subjecting a Derby
> loser to that race in Pimlico is dumb. He\'s going
> to ruin his horse. Did DH ruin BD? He\'s certainly
> trying.

Apparently Tabasco Cat should have passed the Preakness. As well as Louis Quatorze. Theres scores of others that fall into your Lose the Derby, skip the Preakness hypothesis. Including Afleet Alex.

Enough said and please no more shoe discussion either. We are developing bunions here.

[bellsbendboy]

I think Hendricks would be a fool for not running in the Preakness.  Brother Derek was the only horse you could bet, off the paper and was three to one. He had a terrible trip and if Bernardini had the same trip, he would not have won. BBB

[razzle]

catherine,

\"I\'m done.\"

I hope not, your posts are a treat.

\"Thanks for letting me vent!\"

In Latin that\'s, veni, vented, vici!