Do horse racing threads go here?
I’ll Have Another has been scratched from the Belmont for tendonitis. 
I don’t really follow horse racing all that much, but was hoping for another Triple Crown horse this year.
Be well, boy.
Why is the Triple Crown so hard to win? And has something changed about racing, or in how colts are raised, that has made it even harder in recent decades?
I think it takes a lot of guts to take a horse that’s won two of the three biggest races in horse racing and is a heavy favorite to win the third and say “we value the health of the horse over the chance of winning the triple crown.”
I’m not sure every owner could come to the same conclusion.
It’s hard to win because (a) you need a horse that’s good enough to beat all of the other top three-year-olds twice in a two-week span, and (b) even if you do manage that, you then have to race the horse a distance the horse has never raced before (and, in all likelihood, will never come close to racing again) against one or more horses that are expected to do well at the longer distance of the Belmont.
Who knows how many horses would have won the Triple Crown had there not been some other horse that just happened to be a three-year-old that year? Case in point: Bet Twice almost certainly would have done so had Alysheba not raced against him.
I don’t think there’s anything really “different” that has made it harder to win the Triple Crown now than in, say, the 1950s & 1960s when there was a similar gap.
Its always been hard. Since 1875, there have only been 11 triple crown winners. 7 of them won between 1930 and 1948. Three of them between 1973 and 1978 (1977 and 1978 being the only back to back triple crown seasons).
There have been over 50 horses that have won 2 of 3. The Belmont Stakes is most frequently the heartbreaker.
You’re not going to win the Belmont stakes with an injured horse and you certainly aren’t going to get huge stud fees with a crippled horse. It might even make sense to withdraw if you thought you would have a poor showing at the Belmont, which would lower your stud fees. So I don’t know how much integrity or “guts” it takes to withdraw your horse from the triple crown.
Of course you get a lot of money if you win the triple crown too.
I’m pretty sure a number of owners who might have considered it changed their minds after seeing what happened to Barbaro.
I personally think the type of horses being bred has changed. Compare I’ll Have Another- or ANY of the top 3 year olds in recent years- to the champions of the past: Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Man O’War, etc. The bone and substance just isn’t there. That has to hinder the horses.
In my opinion, I think 3 is way too young to be pushing thes BABIES this hard. Most breeds of horse aren’t even being broke to saddle at this age.
Any entity that stood to profit from the race tomorrow has to be having migraines. The track and its employees, NY State, the broadcasting network, the bookies and any others just got burned big time.
It’s too bad. It was an interesting story that has gone up in smoke. And yes, it would be totally wrong for the horse to become another Barbaro. Having won two legs of the Triple Crown he at least has significant stud value.
Whenever we have a thread about “what’s the first significant event you remember?” my answer is watching Secretariat winning the Belmont on a portable TV in a horse barn.
A Triple Crown winner is thrilling and I was sincerely hoping that it would turn out to be something I could see with my son this year.
It’s the best business decision, and best for the horse, but I’m still a little sad.
Steroids. Seriously.
[quote=“That_Don_Guy, post:4, topic:624526”]
It’s hard to win because …you then have to race the horse a distance the horse has never raced before (and, in all likelihood, will never come close to racing again) against one or more horses that are expected to do well at the longer distance of the Belmont.
[QUOTE]
Were there more races in the past at the Belmont length of 1-1/2 miles, and if so why did they stop racing that distance?
You know there’s a ton of broken stuff around NBC Sports HQ tonight.
I agree with Damuri Ajashi: even a greedy and short-sighted owner would do the same if there’s evidence the horse really can’t run his best - little chance of winning, and quite a decent chance of damaging the horse’s reputation and value.
Are the horses that a Derby and Preakness winner face in the Belmont different than the horses from the other two races? I always assumed they were mostly the same horses it had already faced in the previous two races.
All steroids were banned in 2008 following the breakdown of Eight Belles in the Derby that year. Oddly, she was NOT on steroids, as a necropsy confirmed. Who was? The winner of the 2008 Derby, Big Brown. Steroids were banned during the time frame the Triple Crown was being run, and the unofficial horse world scuttlebutt is part of the reason Big Brown fell apart in the Belmont (he didn’t even finish the race) was steroid withdrawal.
Reportedly, Secretariat was one of the first to use Winstrol, a popular anabolic steroid. Some horsefolk are saying they remember reading about his trainer using it back in 1973, but memories can be blurred. I know the famous 1930s Australian super horse Phar Lap was given arsenic in his diet, and it was an accidental overdose that killed him (recent hair sample testing confirmed this).
I would daresay horses today are running much, much cleaner than their counterparts of 50 years ago. Testing is more sensitive and more public now, which makes it seem worse.