Sunday's New York Times had an article (for some reason it is not reprinted on line, hence no link) by Len Ragozin and Len Friedman, well known consultants to many in the thoroughbred world, about the Triple Crown being obsolete--as in impossible to achieve in this modern age of racing. And no, they are not blaming the tendency to breed for speed or the pampered existence of the racehorse. They are blaming the common practice of treating horses with everything from "vitamins" to "supplements" to drugs. The Triple Crown, they write, "is a dangerous grind in this era of chemically high-tech, high-powered training."
As evidence, they point to the fact that not only has there been no Triple Crown winner in 30 years, it has become the exception for a horse to continue to run well after he/she has won one or more legs of the Triple Crown. "Our mathematically generated historical records of thoroughbred performance show that horses that run extremely well during the Triple Crown almost never get back to their peak abilities," they note. Of course there are exceptions: Secretariat, Spectacular Bid and Curlin, but even those are few and far between.
It is not because they are all retired to the breeding shed; it is because they have run too fast, too hard, too close together. Their suggestion is to space the races four weeks apart. Even hall of fame trainer D. Wayne Lucas agrees with the idea, and he wants to add another twist: include the Travers in the title.
Will racing ever change the Triple Crown? Five years ago, I would have told you, Never. Now with the sport becoming almost as obsolete as the crown its participants pursue, I'm not sure. It seems to me that it is a no-win situation--no pun intended. If you change the rules, whoever wins the first title under the new regulations will never "measure up" to those that came before. Don't change them and there may not be another winner for another thirty years, by which time, no one will be paying attention.
A better solution seems to me to ban the use of all pharmaceutical additives. Go back to the days of running on hay and oats and we will be racing a stronger, healthier horse up to the challenge who will beget offspring equally as suited for the task. Level the playing field for everyone involved by taking everything away. I still might not see another Triple Crown in my lifetime, but my children might see one in theirs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I think a Triple Crown is certainly possible today. It's pretty clear that Mine That Bird would have won the Preakness if Jess Jackson had not hi-jacked Calvin Borel.
Even Jackson admitted as much when he said that Borel on RA added two lengths and that without Borel, it would have been "nose to nose".
And with a real shot at a Triple Crown on the table, Woolley and Borel may have taken greater care in prepping the horse for the Belmont, and then who knows?
It's not that there aren't horses out there who can win. The real problem is that the equine "stars" can't cut it even if they DO dumb down the Crown.
Just look at Dunkirk. He was as well rested as they come and he's STILL out for the year. Quality Road, Old Fashioned, I Want Revenge. All gone.
There's a great scene in the great film "Blade Runner". The maker tells the replicant, "you were made as well we could make you". The replicant answers, before he kills his creator, "but not to last". So it seems with these super horses.
I think the true solution is not to dumb down the Triple Crown to the point where they have a winner every year (deserving or not), but to change the selection process so that they exclude the animals that don't have a chance in hell of winning a major race and remaining healthy.
Get some horses in there that haven't been corrupted by modern breeding practices and we just might see another Triple Crown... and a real one to boot...not some fabrication of the marketing unit at ESPN.
Post a Comment