There are a lot of decisions to be made in the next few
weeks or months regarding the rescheduling of the Kentucky Derby Presented by
Woodford Reserve (G1) and the ramifications it will have on the other two
Triple Crown races and several major race meets, especially Saratoga.
Well, there are two potential decisions that are not out of
the realm of possibility, one of which is more realistic.
First off, and this probably will not happen, I would love
to see a track like Santa Anita Park, or whoever wants to put up the money,
stage a mile-and-a-quarter race on the first Saturday in May. I mention Santa
Anita because of the assurance of a fast track, the TV appeal, which we're
seeing now with NBC Sports, Fox Sports, and TVG all having extensive racing
coverage over the next two weeks, and having TVG and XBTV as their home
networks.
But looking at it more realistically, I can't think of a
reason why NYRA, if it continues to race with no patrons, shouldn't run the
Belmont Stakes Presented by NYRA Bets (G1) either as scheduled or a week or two
or three earlier.
First of all, it would replace the Derby as THE target race
for all the 3-year-olds who, to quote Meat Loaf, are all revved up for a
classic with no place to go. It would be the only sporting event to bet on and
the nationwide and worldwide handle would be through the roof. You have the TV
rights, and all eyes will be on Belmont. As I said, we already have major race
coverage on three different networks the next two weekends -- NBC Sports, Fox
Sports, and TVG. In a crazy year like this, who says we need to have a Triple
Crown. As Churchill demonstrated in its decision where to reschedule the Derby,
it's every track for itself, and this way the Belmont Stakes would be the star
attraction of the spring instead of the Derby.
If NYRA does keep the Belmont on schedule I believe the
nationwide and worldwide handle would be enormous as the only sports betting
outlet in the country, and beyond, and the only sport running. And TV networks
will be clamoring to televise a live sporting event.
Running a large classic field at a mile and a quarter at
Belmont could be challenging for outside-drawn horses -- such races there
essentially begin on the first of two turns due to the track's layout -- and some
people might say you really don't want to have horses go from a mile and an
eighth to a mile and a half. Well, it didn't stop Sir Winston, Tonalist, Ruler
on Ice, Drosselmeyer, Da' Tara, Rags to Riches, Sarava, Colonial Affair, Danzig
Connection, Caveat, Conquistador Cielo, Summing, Temperence Hill, and Coastal
from winning the Belmont never having been farther than 1 1/8 miles. So of the
last 40 Belmont winners, 35 percent of them had never been farther than 1 1/8
miles.
If NYRA decides it would easier and safer to just stay at
Aqueduct, then you could easily run the Belmont at a mile and a quarter or
traditionally keep it at a mile and a half. They did run the Belmont
successfully at Aqueduct through half the decade of the '60s when it was won by
Hall of Famer Damascus, Kentucky Derby winner Chateaugay, and eventual Travers
winner Quadrangle, who thwarted Northern Dancer's bid at sweeping the Triple
Crown.
And second, with the Derby and possibly the Preakness Stakes
(G1) moved to September, there wouldn't be any place on the calendar for the
Belmont that I can see. There is just no place to squeeze it in, especially
with the Runhappy Travers Stakes (G1) and TVG. Com Haskell Invitational Stakes (G1)
preceding the Derby and being forced to move to an earlier date. It's going be
hard enough to squeeze those three races in from July to Labor Day and then
follow it right up with the Preakness. By the time they did get around to the
Belmont, everyone is going to be thinking Breeders' Cup. And trainers are not going
to run their horses in the Breeders' Cup Classic coming off a mile-and-a-half
race. When the Jockey Club Gold Cup was a mile and a half it was a disaster as
a prep for the Classic and cost Easy Goer any shot of beating Sunday Silence by
dulling him to the point where he was too lethargic early in the race and
dropped too far out of it. Also, you can't have the Belmont compete with the
Jockey Club Gold Cup, so I just don't see where a mile-and-a-half race fits in
even they wanted to run it.
Let's also remember that the Kentucky Derby will lose one
major element this year. The great mystique of the Derby that separates it from
other races is that you have horses going a mile and a quarter for the first
time. Now they're going to go a mile and quarter a few weeks after going a mile
and a quarter in the Travers. That is far from an ideal scenario. Who is going
to want to prep for a mile-and-a-quarter race in a mile-and-a-quarter race three
or four weeks apart?
I can't help but wonder what would happen if NYRA decided to
go toe to toe with the Derby and keep the Travers where it is. How many New
York horsemen would want to win the Travers in all its normalcy and rightful
place on the calendar than a makeshift Kentucky Derby? I have no idea, but
would there be enough diehard New Yorkers to take top horses away from the
Derby?
But the bottom line is that the Belmont Stakes is being run on
June 6. As everyone knows that is D-Day. Perhaps this year that can stand for
"Derby Day," whether they run it on June 6 or earlier.
Anyway, those are a few of the
scenarios regarding racing and the Triple Crown that are worth pondering. What
else do we have to do?
