A problem that isn't doesn't need fixing
“The Derby is a race of aristocratic sleekness, for horses of birth to prove their worth to run in the Preakness.”
-Ogden Nash
It’s Preakness week, so it’s time for the annual hand-wringing by certain segments of the fourth estate on why the middle jewel of the Triple Crown needs a date change. Unlike some commentators who feel additional spacing between the three classics is necessary for the ultimate preservation of the three-race series, Daily Racing Form’s Jay Hovdey (“What a difference a week could make” – May 12, 2010) has cleverly twisted the argument, suggesting the fate of the race itself requires that it be moved from its traditional third Saturday in May position to a date one week later.
Considering the Preakness generates more handle and higher television ratings than any single race in the country bar the Kentucky Derby (and the occasional Belmont Stakes when a Triple Crown is on the line), it’s hard to take seriously the argument that the Pimlico highlight needs fixing. But let’s analyze Hovdey’s argument more closely.
Hovdey writes, “The Preakness needs to be saved because it is no longer a significant part of the Triple Crown, or of the racing season at large, except as it pertains to a single horse – the Derby winner.
“Each year, the pursuit of the Derby sucks the marrow out of the 3-year-old generation, and each year, the Preakness suffers. Go ahead, take a look at the horses who will not be running in the Preakness on Saturday. The list includes the winners of the 2010 Wood Memorial, Florida Derby, Arkansas Derby, Santa Anita Derby, Blue Grass Stakes, Sunland Park Derby, Lane's End Stakes, and the Tampa Bay Derby.”
Setting aside the unfortunate fact that the Preakness is monetarily worth only half as much as the Kentucky Derby, it would appear the bigger problem is not the Preakness’ date but the Kentucky Derby “sucking the marrow” out of the classic crop. Why should that have to be the case? An editorial by Andrew Beyer, reprinted in DRF prior to the Derby, made several relevant points on why owners and trainers of many three-year-old colts shouldn’t throw caution to the wind and press their charges to make a race that many aren’t genetically endowed or talented enough to win. Of course, it’s easier to change the date of the Preakness than curtail a behavior which is the real problem.
As far as this year’s Preakness lacking the winners of the above races, it’s a very weak argument. The winners of the Wood Memorial (Eskendereya) and the Sunland Derby (Endorsement) were so unsound they couldn’t even contest the Kentucky Derby, nor did the Tampa Bay Derby winner (Odysseus) qualify for the Run for the Roses. And as the above quote from Ogden Nash demonstrates, the winners of the Arkansas Derby (Line of David), Santa Anita Derby (Sidney’s Candy), Blue Grass (Stately Victor), and Lane’s End (Dean’s Kitten) proved their unworthiness for the Baltimore bash with their poor showings at Churchill Downs, and no extra spacing would change that fact. Only Ice Box, the Florida Derby winner, is a notable and unnecessary absentee from the Preakness lineup, which suggests to me the son of Pulpit is taking after his father in the soundness department, or trainer Nick Zito, a former Preakness winner, has his priorities out of whack.
Hovdey continues: “Anyone concerned by a break with tradition only need be reminded that there is nothing sacrosanct about the two-week spacing. Times change.
Sir Barton won the 1919 Derby and then the Preakness on three days' rest. Gallant Fox won the 1930 Derby eight days after he had already won the Preakness. His son Omaha won the Preakness one week after the Derby, as did War Admiral, Whirlaway, Count Fleet, and Assault.
That's seven of the 11 Triple Crown winners right there. So much for tradition. Citation was the first Triple Crown winner to get two weeks between the Derby and the Preakness, the same gap later enjoyed by Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Affirmed. As I recall, those four colts were held in fairly high esteem even though they had seven extra days to recover from the Derby.”
First, let’s take Sir Barton and Gallant Fox out of the equation as the concept of the Triple Crown wasn’t even created by legendary turf writer Charles Hatton until after the latter’s win in the 1930 Belmont. Prior to 1931, the three races were stand-alone entities that were not unified into a series horsemen wanted to win.
It is true that the five Triple Crown winners from 1935-46 won the Derby and Preakness with one week in between, but couldn’t one argue, then (somewhat facetiously), that the Preakness should be moved up, rather than back, a week?
It should also be noted that Sir Barton won the Derby on May 10, Gallant Fox on May 17, and War Admiral on May 8. Perhaps the Kentucky Derby’s position on the first Saturday in May is not so sacrosanct either.
One issue not raised by Hovdey is that if the date of the Preakness is moved, the date of the Belmont would have to be adjusted, too. I don’t think a mere two-week break between the second and third legs of the Crown would be viewed with much enthusiasm either. So if we do this, now we’re talking about the classics being conducted over a span of six weeks.
While it is true Citation, Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed did not suffer in reputation for winning a three-race series conducted over five weeks, wouldn’t the accomplishment of a future Triple Crown winner pale in comparison to the ones achieved by those colts, especially the latter three who millions of people remember watching on TV and in living color? The answer is obvious.
The Triple Crown has been swept in as few as 28 days (by War Admiral and Assault) and only one Triple Crown winner, Citation, accomplished the feat in more than 35 days. Though the gap was six weeks in 1948, Citation at least had the decency to squeeze another race in during that span (winning the Jersey Stakes). How many trainers today would do that with a six-week gap between the Derby and Belmont?
“Handcuffed by modern horsemanship, a Preakness run just 14 days after the Derby undergoes a dramatic cast change and squanders any name recognition - beyond the Derby winner - that might have been generated by the Derby prerace coverage and marathon Derby telecast.
“Furthermore, any lingering questions raised by troubled Derby trips go unanswered when the aggrieved colts fail to show up at Pimlico. One more week, that's all it would take, and most of them would be right back in the gate.”
It is pure conjecture, and with no factual basis to support the claim, that more Derby runners would wheel back in the Preakness with an extra week of rest. And again, those that couldn’t cut the mustard in Louisville probably don’t need to be cluttering up the Preakness.
The key phrase above, however, is “Handcuffed by modern horsemanship.” We all know this is the real problem, and not the 14-day gap between the Derby and Preakness. Few of today’s leading horsemen have an ounce of originality when it comes to their training regimens. They seemingly all use the same playbook, which requires that their top runners not be exposed to running less than 3 or 4 weeks between races. Some practice the extreme measure of requiring 2 or 3 months between outings.
Racing secretaries throughout the country have ultimately pandered to this widespread phenomenon by adjusting the dates of major races, thus eroding whatever tradition the sport could use to sell itself. One thing that hasn’t changed within the living memory of most folks is the Triple Crown being conducted over a five-week period, perhaps a reason why it and it alone is the only part of the sport that continues to resonate with the public at large.
“Modern horsemanship” is a self-constricting behavior that has failed the sport in so many areas that it is no surprise the game is in such dire straits. The handcuffs and shackles were not forced on trainers, but instead put on by themselves. Let’s not encourage more of the same by moving the date of the Preakness, which the sporting public knows as sure as the sun rises in the East is always the must-see event on the third Saturday in May.
-Ogden Nash
It’s Preakness week, so it’s time for the annual hand-wringing by certain segments of the fourth estate on why the middle jewel of the Triple Crown needs a date change. Unlike some commentators who feel additional spacing between the three classics is necessary for the ultimate preservation of the three-race series, Daily Racing Form’s Jay Hovdey (“What a difference a week could make” – May 12, 2010) has cleverly twisted the argument, suggesting the fate of the race itself requires that it be moved from its traditional third Saturday in May position to a date one week later.
Considering the Preakness generates more handle and higher television ratings than any single race in the country bar the Kentucky Derby (and the occasional Belmont Stakes when a Triple Crown is on the line), it’s hard to take seriously the argument that the Pimlico highlight needs fixing. But let’s analyze Hovdey’s argument more closely.
Hovdey writes, “The Preakness needs to be saved because it is no longer a significant part of the Triple Crown, or of the racing season at large, except as it pertains to a single horse – the Derby winner.
“Each year, the pursuit of the Derby sucks the marrow out of the 3-year-old generation, and each year, the Preakness suffers. Go ahead, take a look at the horses who will not be running in the Preakness on Saturday. The list includes the winners of the 2010 Wood Memorial, Florida Derby, Arkansas Derby, Santa Anita Derby, Blue Grass Stakes, Sunland Park Derby, Lane's End Stakes, and the Tampa Bay Derby.”
Setting aside the unfortunate fact that the Preakness is monetarily worth only half as much as the Kentucky Derby, it would appear the bigger problem is not the Preakness’ date but the Kentucky Derby “sucking the marrow” out of the classic crop. Why should that have to be the case? An editorial by Andrew Beyer, reprinted in DRF prior to the Derby, made several relevant points on why owners and trainers of many three-year-old colts shouldn’t throw caution to the wind and press their charges to make a race that many aren’t genetically endowed or talented enough to win. Of course, it’s easier to change the date of the Preakness than curtail a behavior which is the real problem.
As far as this year’s Preakness lacking the winners of the above races, it’s a very weak argument. The winners of the Wood Memorial (Eskendereya) and the Sunland Derby (Endorsement) were so unsound they couldn’t even contest the Kentucky Derby, nor did the Tampa Bay Derby winner (Odysseus) qualify for the Run for the Roses. And as the above quote from Ogden Nash demonstrates, the winners of the Arkansas Derby (Line of David), Santa Anita Derby (Sidney’s Candy), Blue Grass (Stately Victor), and Lane’s End (Dean’s Kitten) proved their unworthiness for the Baltimore bash with their poor showings at Churchill Downs, and no extra spacing would change that fact. Only Ice Box, the Florida Derby winner, is a notable and unnecessary absentee from the Preakness lineup, which suggests to me the son of Pulpit is taking after his father in the soundness department, or trainer Nick Zito, a former Preakness winner, has his priorities out of whack.
Hovdey continues: “Anyone concerned by a break with tradition only need be reminded that there is nothing sacrosanct about the two-week spacing. Times change.
Sir Barton won the 1919 Derby and then the Preakness on three days' rest. Gallant Fox won the 1930 Derby eight days after he had already won the Preakness. His son Omaha won the Preakness one week after the Derby, as did War Admiral, Whirlaway, Count Fleet, and Assault.
That's seven of the 11 Triple Crown winners right there. So much for tradition. Citation was the first Triple Crown winner to get two weeks between the Derby and the Preakness, the same gap later enjoyed by Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Affirmed. As I recall, those four colts were held in fairly high esteem even though they had seven extra days to recover from the Derby.”
First, let’s take Sir Barton and Gallant Fox out of the equation as the concept of the Triple Crown wasn’t even created by legendary turf writer Charles Hatton until after the latter’s win in the 1930 Belmont. Prior to 1931, the three races were stand-alone entities that were not unified into a series horsemen wanted to win.
It is true that the five Triple Crown winners from 1935-46 won the Derby and Preakness with one week in between, but couldn’t one argue, then (somewhat facetiously), that the Preakness should be moved up, rather than back, a week?
It should also be noted that Sir Barton won the Derby on May 10, Gallant Fox on May 17, and War Admiral on May 8. Perhaps the Kentucky Derby’s position on the first Saturday in May is not so sacrosanct either.
One issue not raised by Hovdey is that if the date of the Preakness is moved, the date of the Belmont would have to be adjusted, too. I don’t think a mere two-week break between the second and third legs of the Crown would be viewed with much enthusiasm either. So if we do this, now we’re talking about the classics being conducted over a span of six weeks.
While it is true Citation, Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed did not suffer in reputation for winning a three-race series conducted over five weeks, wouldn’t the accomplishment of a future Triple Crown winner pale in comparison to the ones achieved by those colts, especially the latter three who millions of people remember watching on TV and in living color? The answer is obvious.
The Triple Crown has been swept in as few as 28 days (by War Admiral and Assault) and only one Triple Crown winner, Citation, accomplished the feat in more than 35 days. Though the gap was six weeks in 1948, Citation at least had the decency to squeeze another race in during that span (winning the Jersey Stakes). How many trainers today would do that with a six-week gap between the Derby and Belmont?
“Handcuffed by modern horsemanship, a Preakness run just 14 days after the Derby undergoes a dramatic cast change and squanders any name recognition - beyond the Derby winner - that might have been generated by the Derby prerace coverage and marathon Derby telecast.
“Furthermore, any lingering questions raised by troubled Derby trips go unanswered when the aggrieved colts fail to show up at Pimlico. One more week, that's all it would take, and most of them would be right back in the gate.”
It is pure conjecture, and with no factual basis to support the claim, that more Derby runners would wheel back in the Preakness with an extra week of rest. And again, those that couldn’t cut the mustard in Louisville probably don’t need to be cluttering up the Preakness.
The key phrase above, however, is “Handcuffed by modern horsemanship.” We all know this is the real problem, and not the 14-day gap between the Derby and Preakness. Few of today’s leading horsemen have an ounce of originality when it comes to their training regimens. They seemingly all use the same playbook, which requires that their top runners not be exposed to running less than 3 or 4 weeks between races. Some practice the extreme measure of requiring 2 or 3 months between outings.
Racing secretaries throughout the country have ultimately pandered to this widespread phenomenon by adjusting the dates of major races, thus eroding whatever tradition the sport could use to sell itself. One thing that hasn’t changed within the living memory of most folks is the Triple Crown being conducted over a five-week period, perhaps a reason why it and it alone is the only part of the sport that continues to resonate with the public at large.
“Modern horsemanship” is a self-constricting behavior that has failed the sport in so many areas that it is no surprise the game is in such dire straits. The handcuffs and shackles were not forced on trainers, but instead put on by themselves. Let’s not encourage more of the same by moving the date of the Preakness, which the sporting public knows as sure as the sun rises in the East is always the must-see event on the third Saturday in May.
posted by Aidan Roark at 10:03 PM
1 Comments:
Excellent post!
This shows the current state of Amkerican racing in a nutshell. Ignoring the obvious problems and instead fidgeting around with the few things that do work.
Given the current situation and almost ridiculously directionless management at Pimlico, the matter may be moot in a couple of years anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home