More than 100,000
people crammed into Belmont Park on Saturday.
More than 20
million people watched the Belmont Stakes on NBC.
More than $150
million was bet on the card, shattering by an order of magnitude the amount of
money bet on any other day of horse racing in the history of New York state.
And because
California Chrome came up a couple lengths short, we should blow it all up?
Through this year’s
Triple Crown chase, there was a single voice advocating for any sort of change
to the Triple Crown series. That person was Tom Chuckas, president of the
Maryland Jockey Club, and his goal was clearly self-serving – he wanted to move
the Preakness to the prime date that the Belmont Stakes currently holds in
early June.
His concerns,
also, had little to do with the Triple Crown races themselves as much as the
supporting races. Churchill Downs has a string of top races during Kentucky Derby
weekend. The race before the Derby featured reigning Horse of the Year Wise
Dan.
At Belmont
Saturday, the card featured a
who’s who of horse racing including the top three older mares in the
country – Beholder, Princess of Slymar and Close Hatches – and the top older dirt
horse in training, Palace Malice.
“I think at the end of the day we owe it to our fans
to put the best product on the table,” Chuckas
said. “Wise Dan ran in Churchill the other day. Bring him back to the Dixie
(at Pimlico) and then bring him up to New York for their race.
No one agreed
with Chuckas for a full month. Then California Chrome came up short. Then Steve
Coburn opened his mouth. And then reporters who cover horse racing once a year –
morons
like Pat Forde – were suddenly saying the Belmont Stakes should move to the
first week of July.
Did you see those
numbers I cited at the top? You might as well suggest moving the Belmont Stakes
to the moon.
If there had been
a movement to change the Triple Crown before California Chrome lost, then maybe
we would have a real issue to deal with. But the reaction – coming mostly from
the casualest of casual fans – reveals that it’s derived from the crushing
disappointment that California Chrome simply didn’t win like he
should have.
The problem with
the notion of changing the series is that winning the Belmont Stakes for a
Triple Crown contender is not some sort of far-off fantasy in which no one can
ever conceive it happen.
In 1997, Silver
Charm lost by less than a length. In 1998, Real Quiet lost by a nose. In 1999,
Charismatic finished third despite an injury. In 2004, Smarty
Jones should have won but ran this first mile-and-a-quarter fast enough to
win about 75 percent of Kentucky Derby races.
And this year,
are we so sure California Chrome would have lost if Victor Espinoza had taken
the lead on a rail that was hot all day?
It’s very hard
for any horse to win three Grade I races in a row, regardless of time, track,
distance or competition. The fact that Chrome had done so – including the Santa
Anita Derby in April – to get to the Belmont Stakes proved that he was a great
horse. Does finishing a couple of lengths behind Tonalist on Saturday diminish
any of that?
The only reason
for changing the series would be if we found the wear and tear on horses was
ending careers and causing injuries. There is no indication that three races in
five weeks do anything but challenge them greatly.
There has developed
the notion that horses are not bred to win at the one-and-a-half mile distance
but every year, a horse wins the Belmont Stakes and, sometimes, very
impressively. Palace Malice won the Belmont last year and came back to win the
Met Mile on Saturday. Afleet Alex and Point
Given, in 2005 and 2001 respectively, had no problem winning at the
distance impressively. The distance didn’t seem to bother Tonalist, right?
The Triple Crown
is the hardest feat to pull off in sports and that’s why it matters. Lest we
forget that it had been 25 years of no Triple Crown winners before Secretariat
pulled off the feat in 1973.
Spectacular Bid,
a horse that won 26 of 30 races lifetime and is inarguably one of the greatest
racehorses in history, lost the Belmont Stakes in 1979.
Alysheba, a horse
that retired as the richest in history, was dusted in the Belmont by 10
lengths to Bet Twice.
Yet for all the
near-misses and heartbreak, this is the first time we’ve decided that it’s time
to address the drought and change it so a horse wins.
At the end of the
day – does it even matter if a horse doesn’t win the Triple Crown?
For as much as
Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed are ingrained in our collective
consciousness as winners, those who have lost the Belmont in the past 36 years
have formed their own club of exclusivity. California Chrome will be forever
linked with Smarty Jones, Silver Charm, Sunday Silence and Spectacular Bid as
amazing horses that couldn’t quite get it done at Belmont.
That’s okay.
If California
Chrome had won, there would have been much rejoicing and I may have even cried
tears of joy. But it wouldn’t have altered the landscape of sports so
dramatically that we should rig it to happen.
If we make it
easier for one horse to win all three, wouldn’t we make it exponentially more
likely a horse wouldn’t even win the first two?
The beauty of the
Triple Crown is in its rhythm. It is the buildup to the Kentucky Derby, when
spring has arrived and possibilities are endless. We move to Baltimore, where
the eyes descend on one horse and one group of connections. If they fail at Pimlico,
the Belmont Stakes is merely a really, really fun
day of horse racing.
But if that horse
wins, the sport of horse racing captivates a nation. The jockey ends up on
David Letterman. The trainer throws out the first pitch at a Yankees game. NBC
moves the Stanley Cup Final to take advantage of it.
And for a few
hours on a June Saturday, everyone focuses in on a massive racetrack in the
shadow of New York City. People show up because they know history will be made,
one way or another.
You don’t fix
what is not broken. The Triple Crown is not broken. It is as perfect as it ever
was.
Follow me on Twitter
Comments
Post a Comment