After the connections of GI Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike (Keen Ice) opted to skip the GI Preakness S. and instead prepare for the GI Belmont S., the structure of the Triple Crown races has been a subject of debate leading up to the second leg of the historic series. Should the timing between the races be adjusted? We asked a few industry participants here.
Chad Brown:
I wouldn't change anything. I'm always an advocate of preserving the history of the sport. It would take a lot for me to want to change certain things.
Once in a while some things arise that should be considered with a changing world and a changing industry. It's not that I'm not flexible or not open to changes in general, but when it comes to some of the most historic tellers of the sport, when you're talking about the Triple Crown, it would take a lot for me to consider changing it. I understand that it's a changing breed and a changing industry, but the Triple Crown is pretty far up the metaphorical food chain of stuff that you mess with.
[Asked if two weeks between Derby and Preakness hurts Preakness field size] In some years, yeah, you could argue that. But in other years, it hasn't. The highest priority for me is always the safety of the horses. You're talking to someone who has skipped the Preakness so it might be easy for me to say. But I have run back in the Preakness, like with Good Magic, and in other years I didn't think it was the right thing to do. It depends on the horse. I just wouldn't support changing it.
Mike Smith:
I'm old-fashioned, so I'll say no, they should not change anything. The way it is now is what makes it so hard to do. If you change anything to make it easier, all of a sudden when you get a Triple Crown winner you're going to wonder if they are as good as the original Triple Crown horses.
I see no need to change it. To me, the timing is fine. They talked about changing it before I was blessed to have won it and I was hoping they didn't. If they changed it, I don't think it would be fair to compare a Triple Crown winner to Justify (Scat Daddy) or any of the other Triple Crown winners.
I'm pinning my faith in Happy Jack. Not to win, obviously, even after a Derby so outlandish that it still confounds the handicapper's genius for rationalizing the most unaccountable events with the invincible benefit of hindsight. As a Calumet homebred by Oxbow, however, you can certainly envisage this fellow proceeding to the GI Belmont S. and so ensuring that at least one horse has contested each leg of the Triple Crown–which would, dismally, be one more than was managed last year even by a crop containing Oxbow's outstanding son to date, who has meanwhile confirmed toughness to be his genetic trademark.
Of course, those of us outraged by renewed proposals to desecrate the Triple Crown heritage will be hoping, far ahead of Happy Jack, either to see Epicenter (Not This Time) show that he has soaked up his remarkably generous exertions in the Derby; or Secret Oath (Arrogate) make it equally plain that this kind of Classic schedule remains within the compass even of modern Thoroughbreds, if only they are bred and/or trained the right way.
As things stand, it feels an affront to both these splendid creatures that their showdown on Saturday, one wholly worthy of the 147th GI Preakness S., should have been so unceremoniously displaced from the top of the week's news agenda. Regardless of whether Rich Strike (Keen Ice) can ever again remotely approach what he did at Churchill, a single, freakish performance should not qualify him, overnight, to subvert the legacy of so many generations of horsemen.
(Click the arrow below to listen to this column as a podcast.)
In fairness, it's not as though his connections set out to start some national debate. They just made a decision about their own horse, and what they figured might work best for him. True, if weighing their decision on bigger scales, they might perhaps have been a little more cognisant of the broader responsibilities–to their sport, with a rare opportunity of engaging the attention of the world beyond–that arguably accompany such a literally fantastic gift from the racing gods. As it is, we have to conclude that they were concentrating on one horse, standing there in his stall. And that's absolutely their prerogative.
But when other people start using that decision as a pretext to review the whole future of the Triple Crown, then you have to ask yourself whether the challenge to all logic, when Rich Strike suddenly materialized along that rail at Churchill, has incidentally prompted us to discard all sanity as well. Because while Eric Reed and Rick Dawson certainly had a pretty interesting start to their month, I am not sure how far they have advanced up the line of horsemen eligible to turn so much of our history on its head.
Sure, there are a whole bunch of other Derby participants sitting out the Preakness. By this stage, however, that feels wholly consistent with the prejudices of modern trainers, in either observing or merely perceiving some inadequacy in the kind of animals we're breeding today. Some of these guys are either automatons themselves, or think that their horses are. As with every question asked by a Thoroughbred, targets should be determined by the flesh-and-blood differences between individuals–and not reduced to a formula, according to the number a horse might have run, or the date on a calendar.
What a drab convention of the faint-hearted, if the schedulers were to yield meekly to such timidity! Thank goodness for D. Wayne Lukas, who has reliably redeemed both the caliber and the narrative of this race. The real torment–for those grateful to him for this, the latest of so many services to our sport–is that we might actually have had a filly on the Triple Crown trail but for the ride that blunted her blade when she tested the Derby waters.
As I've remarked before, the Triple Crown schedule doesn't just maintain the historic integrity of the way we measure the breed. It's how horsemen of the past keep us honest. And while this may not be the most truthful age in the story of civilisation, we have no excuse for lowering our own standards when our livelihoods depend upon a creature as transparent and trusting as the Thoroughbred.
Which, as it happens, is exactly why we can't let training be all about pharmacy–and why people also have to be honest about why they might be trying to emasculate the policing of medication. There's a virtuous circle here. For one thing, a horse is never going to be in greater need of time between races than when a rival has called on artificial reserves. Conversely, it's the horse bred and raised and trained with a clean conscience that will ultimately give us a genetic package worth replicating.
And that conscience comes into play long before the appointment of a scrupulous trainer. It is also required of those whose spending and/or advice at ringside currently, somehow, makes commercial poison of the most wholesome paternity. Calumet may have let a Derby winner slip through their grasp but at least they are prepared to stand against the tide. And that's another reason to hope that Happy Jack can disclose something of the quality that for now remains no more evident than it was in Rich Strike this time two weeks ago.
Kenny McPeek | Coady
This, after all, is an unpredictable game. Who could have imagined that Kenny McPeek, having last winter looked as though he might come up with a Derby trifecta of his own, would roll up here with none of those horses–instead buying a $150,000 wild card for a horse that won, you guessed it, two weeks ago at Churchill?
Obviously Creative Minister (Creative Cause) is unlikely to have endured as taxing a race then as the three who do accompany him here from the Derby. As such, he arrives as a kind of compromise between those making a quick turnaround and the ambush party headed by Early Voting (Gun Runner). Whether that proves the best or worst of both worlds remains to be seen, but I do know one thing. We gain nothing by trying to make things “easier”. In the old axiom, it's when the going gets tough that the tough get going. We need to find out who those horses are, and reward the horsemen who produce them.
After the connections of GI Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike (Keen Ice) opted to skip the GI Preakness S. and instead prepare for the GI Belmont S., the structure of the Triple Crown races has been a subject of debate leading up to the second leg of the historic series. Should the timing between the races be adjusted? We asked a few veteran industry participants here.
Steve Asmussen:
I think it's what makes it the Triple Crown. There are other lucrative races on the calendar, but these are the American Classics. I think that it all depends on who has what horse in what year.
[Asked about timing between races with Preakness contender Epicenter] I'm far more concerned about the weather, which you would have no control on that if you ran it later. If anything, there's a good probability of it being that much hotter.
The difference of two weeks from the Kentucky Derby to the Preakness and three weeks from the Preakness to the Belmont is negligible. I think a similar argument that would come into that is, would you have more entries if the Belmont wasn't a mile and a half? But the Belmont is a mile and a half. That's what makes it the Belmont. Having the Preakness two weeks after the Derby is what makes it the Preakness.
I've had several runners in the Preakness and our two winners were Rachel Alexandra, who won running back 15 days after the Kentucky Oaks, and then Curlin running back 14 days after the Derby. I've had fresh horses coming into the Preakness who ran well, but none that were winners.
Kenny McPeek:
I don't think there's anything wrong with the timing of the Triple Crown. I think it's fine. It's the ultimate challenge and I think especially without Lasix nowadays, it's even better. Horses can come back quicker. It's tradition and it's hard to do. It takes a really special horse.
Chris McCarron:
I don't think it should be changed. I know that it has changed a number of times over the last 150 years, or whatever it is.
Even if we adjusted things by one week and had three weeks between the Preakness and the Derby and then three to the Belmont, it would certainly make things a little bit easier because a horse is going to have another seven days to rebound and to avoid any kind of a bounce. But if that happened, you'd have to put an asterisk next to any future Triple Crown winners. It would diminish the accomplishment.
With Alysheba, he won the Preakness easily but he was a little bit tired, a little bit knocked out coming into the Belmont. The timing of the races probably did catch up to him. That being said, I don't believe it's in the industry's best interest to fool around with the timing of the races.
Check in tomorrow for more responses from industry participants and see our responses from yesterday here.
After the connections of GI Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike (Keen Ice) opted to skip the GI Preakness S. and instead prepare for the GI Belmont S., the structure of the Triple Crown races has been a subject of debate leading up to the second leg of the historic series. Should the timing between the races be adjusted? We asked a few veteran trainers here.
Mark Casse:
I think it has to stay the same. I think it's nonsense to talk any different. This is history, this is what our game has been about for over a hundred years. The Triple Crown is not supposed to be easy. A horse can handle the racing, especially now where we aren't doing as much prior to the Kentucky Derby.
In the Kentucky Derby, we run at a neutral surface. There has been no racing there all spring. Some horses may have ran there in the fall, but the Churchill Downs racetrack is very different in the fall compared to the spring so I don't feel like there's any home field advantage there. Then we go to Pimlico, where it is definitely a neutral playing field. We see a lot of horses run well in the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. War of Will (War Front) is a perfect example of that. He was very much hindered in the Derby and he came back and won the Preakness, but he didn't show up in the Belmont. A lot of people would say he was tired, but I would say it had more to do with the fact that they call it Big Sandy for a reason. The surface is very loose and a lot of horses won't handle it.
It's my feeling that anyone stabled at Belmont has a big advantage. The Kentucky Derby and Preakness are run on a neutral battlefield, but the Belmont is not. I think if you look over the last 20 years, a lot of it has to do with there being a home field advantage rather than horses being tired.
That was my reasoning in doing what I did with [2019 Belmont S. winner] Sir Winston (Awesome Again). I ran him in the GIII Peter Pan S., where he ran second, and I thought going into the Belmont that he had a big chance because he was running over a racetrack he had already ran on. There's no question that Belmont is entirely a different world. A lot of times these horses are doing well in the Derby and the Preakness and then are getting beat in the Belmont. They'll say it's because the horse is tired, but I don't think it's that.
I'm always looking for new ideas and new reasons to make things better, but I don't think the Triple Crown should be changed.
Doug O'Neill:
I think it is time for a change. Everything evolves. We have made a lot of other positive changes in the best interests of the horse. I like the concept of putting four weeks between each of the races and having it be the first Saturday in May, the first Saturday in June and the first Saturday in July. It would work well, too, from a marketing standpoint. My gut says that's the way to go.
I completely disagree with the idea that it would diminish the accomplishment. Sometimes, coming out of the Derby and going into the Preakness, you really don't have to do a lot. As long as there are no injuries, you can kind of coast in between. If you put a month in between, that would require some good horsemanship. Man and horse will have to work together to maintain that level of brilliance in between the races. It could even make it a tad more challenging. I hate being a contrarian, but I think changing it would be a good thing.
Shug McGaughey:
I don't think it should be changed. It's very traditional and one of the reasons why it is so difficult to win is the way the races are spaced.
If they went to three weeks, I wouldn't complain about that. But I think the way it is structured right now adds to the mystique of the Triple Crown. You have to run and you have to have the horse and the knowledge to be able to get the horse from the Derby to the Preakness and then from the Preakness to the Belmont. If I had a horse that ran second or third in the Derby, would I come back in the two weeks? I would think about it.
The Preakness is a race that stands on its own and I would love to win it. If I had a horse that was capable of coming back in two weeks, I would run. If I didn't think the horse was capable of coming back in two weeks, I wouldn't run.
Check in tomorrow for more responses from industry participants.
