Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

bohemiastable — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:56:45 GMT

Teddy--and you missed the Bohemia Stable moniker--shame on you

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Teddy Lopez — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:05:55 GMT

Hi Steve, great story. I have heard something that you're a kelso fan. Well, I'm the biggest kelso fan in the world and, I think kelso was the greatest racehorse of all-times and, I think you know why, but, I'll tell you why anyway. Kelso beat more great horses and good horses than any other horse of all-times, he won more big races than any other horse of all-times, winning somer of them of few times, like tyhe woodward and, the real unbelievable and, mind boggling one being that in the 87 year history of the jockey gold cup, only 9 horses have ever won it twice and, king kelly did it a crazy 5 times and, did it 5 years in a row! You well know that's a two mile race. he also set the record 3 times doing it and, in the last one breaking his own record! That was after setting a record on dirt only 11 days earlier, which no other horse has ever done before or since! They talk all that stuff about secretariat doing 2:24 flat at belmont and winning by 31 lengths, he was carrying 126 pounds and, he did it on dirt on 2 turns. first of all, the only real competition sec had in that race was sham and, sham broke down. So her took off and, had no traffic at all infront of him to block him anywhere. Have in mind that sec was a big strong horse with long legs, longer legs than kelso who was a small horse who looked like a darn deer and weighed about 900 pounds. Having longer legs means a bigger stride. Oh and , what the hell was 126 pounds to a big strong horse like secretariat, whom Jim Squires and, alot of people say was juiced up on top of that? Now going to kelso, kelso did 2:23 4/5 at the dc international againts the best horses in the world at that time and, he was carrying 126 pounds and, did it on 3 turns. This was on grass. Now, I have spoken to experts all over the country, inc- luding the hall of fame and blood horse and, the daily racing form and, some say grass is faster some say that it depends on the condition of the track for the race. When I asked the ones who say grass is faster, when I asked them how much damn faster, they say about 1 secound. Now if that's true, wouldn't that secound go to hell when you consider kelso did this on 3 turns compared to secs 2 turns? I would think so. Now here it is, they say that year kelso set that record at laurel park the grass was as hard as dirt cause it had rained alot throughout the whole year. He did it in fashion too, beating his younger rival gun bow, who was no slouch! Kelso was 7 years old and, I won't let people forget that this was a small horse who had shorter legs than his greatgrandfather man of war or secretariat. So he must have been covering less ground with his srides but, still look at his timings! The only thing they try to put kelso down for, because hell, he won everything else, is the triple crown. First of all king kelly didn't participate in the triple crown cause he got a late start cause he was hurt, but still he became the first horse to win best 3 year old and not win the triple crown. He did beat horse that had won some of those triple crown races that year! He won something that some say is even harder than that. Kelso is one of only 4 horses to ever win the handicapped triple crown in which he was giving away x amount of weight to other horses. I think there will never be another kelso, they don't even run two miles anymore. Kelso proved it all, like eddie arcaro said 'kelso would have beaten the crap out of citation'. They put kelso in a computor race againts his greatgrandfather man of war and, they had kelso winning by a neck. As far as secretariat, I saw the movie and have the movie and everything. I woould have like to seen him tested with more than 126 pounds, he lost 5 races as it was and, he wasn't giving away any weight to the horses!When prove out beat him, prove out was carrying 6 more pounds than he was. Interesting, prove out has the secound fastest two miles time after the great kelso! Secretariats' people never raced prove out again, some say they avoided him like the plague. Prove out did beat 4 hall of famers. Sec was beaten by two of allen jerkins horses. Kelso got beaten 3 times by beau purple but mrs. dupont didn't duck him, they finally beat beau purplr the last time. Kelso didn't duck any horse. I use to talk to the late Dick Jenkins who worked with kelso and, he would tell me these wonderful stories about kelso. To sum kelso up when they bought kelso back to belmont cause his so many fans wanted to see the phenomenon again, they had forego with him. Kelso was 26 and forego was 13 and people say kelso still looked as young as forego! He was a small colt who even though he came out of man of war, not many thought wouldf amount to a good horse, never mind the greatest racehorse of all-times. His story isd one for a hell of a movie. Somebody told me, 'man, why havn't they made a movie about him'? Like somebody said 'Once upon a time there was a horse called kelso, buty only once'. Kelsos' biggest fan Teddy.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

chucky — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:33:45 GMT

You are welcome Linda from Texas --

Just to reaffirm what I meant. Bode will be sought after by breeders/buyers/owners not because he is gorgeous (he is) but because he runs fast miles...That is what owners/buyers wanted for the last 15-20 years....

Bode also lost because he cannot carry that speed past 9 furlongs...

Shackleford, Rachel Alexandra, Quality Road are examples of basically 8-9 furlongs horses....

Although plenty would deny that come up with some excuses but it is fact!

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Slew — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:28:19 GMT

Linda...I was 5 for Citation, and Arcaro was always my favorite jockey back then. I keep asking HRTV to do an Inside Information on the only jockey to win 2 Triple Crowns...I hope some day they do.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Linda in Texas — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 06:20:57 GMT

Peggy in California, thank you very much for your kind words. I enjoy so many who write on this blog who time and time again teach all of us something new.

And i am with you regarding Alex'sBigFan and hope the cameramen realize she is a very famous person to us and show her up close so we can all see her.

Enjoy The Belmont Peggy in California and i hope the horse of your choice wins.

Linda

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Peggy in California — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:40:53 GMT

Linda in Texas, Thank you for the nice things you have to say and for caring about the people on this blog. I think that is one of the things (and Dr. D's always funny comments) that sets Steve Haskin's blogs apart from the other ones where people insult each other and say mostly negative things. I'm anxiously waiting for the race also and hope to see Alex'sBigFan in her beautiful blue dress when they show the live audience.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Linda in Texas — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:21:20 GMT

Thsnks Chucky, wasn't the young kid in the cereal ad named Chucky? Dr. D. you are the expert.

And thank you Jean in Chicago for the info. Haven't seen you post lately and i have missed you.

Did not realize you were talking about the stud barn Chucky, my error. And i can understand why Bodemeister would be sought out as he is a big beautiful race horse. Looking at the photo of Bode and 'Another' flying around the first turn i thought at a first glance Zenyatta had been 'snuck' in. Bode is a monster next to I'll Have Another. And i do like him. And i would love to know the mathematics as to why he did not win. I can think up questions, but have no idea how to figure out the answer.

As far as disqualifications go, i am of course aware of bute etc. and other unallowables, but i meant disqualified for running into another horse on purpose over and over,the ganging up by several jockeys to cut one horse off like i feel happened in another TC race this year and slowing or rating on purpose to keep another from proceeding. It bothered me. There are 3 that i am leery of and i won't mention them. I just hope they leave issues home and ride a clean race. I already stated that. I am ducking as i write this, i see the daggers flying! i mentioned no names nor horses connected to them regarding the 3 unpleasant traits. It is not the horse's fault when he is run into the back of another, he would run through a steel vault if his rider directed him to.

Steve, the video with Dale Romans was timely. Me thinks he really finds the "Stakes Barn" a bummer, just like i said before. i like your black cap and shirt, man alive you are color coordinated and a fashion statement just like Our Alex'sBigFan will be in her Cobalt Blue dress. What did the cap have written on it,anything??? I was hoping you didn't interview Dale Romans with a "Union Rags" cap on.:) I am so anxious about the race that i almost feel like i should not even watch it. I appreciate them all.

And i would at the same time think i had died and gone to Green Pastures should he win.

Good luck and a safe journey to each and every horse, trainer, jockey, owner and all the supporting barn assistants who lovingly devote so much to all of these horses and make them so handsome and powerful and beautiful on the way to the gates!

Give yourselves a hand. And as i say that i choke up. I am entirely too emotional this week and i need to get a grip.

I am no spring chicken Slew,i was 8 years old when Citation won The Triple Crown and remember how delighted my mother was. But i am hoping to make 97 like my grandpa who fought in The Spanish American War and one of the last Vets to die who did.

And an ole railbird and Deacon, i find you both so calm and knowledgeable in everything you say. Your words to me are like the song a slow flowing river makes.

Steady, soft spoken, never offensive and full of such good racing information.

And Steve, the same thoughts are for you also, you are a real sport and make our days worthwhile every time you write something about this

magnificent sport. You know you are appreciated and so gifted.

Thank you Steve.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Dr Drunkinbum — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:20:04 GMT

Marilyn Braudrick

Dreams are full of metaphors. Maybe The Belmont, since it is for the Triple Crown, represents The Derby as the greatest race. But I hope not !!! I want I'll Have Another to do it. Or maybe your house is going to be painted by a man named Kirby.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Invading Humor — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:52:50 GMT

Steve - Fairly simple. Look at the Derby video and what Dullahan was doing easily and quickly at that distance at the wire. I would love to see a Triple Crown winner and I'll Have Another could do it. Couple him with or key him behind Dullahan. Good luck everyone.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Cassandra.Says — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:38:56 GMT

Oh, Steve! "Secretariat could get away with running his first 6 furlongs in 1:094/5 in a five horse field."

Let me rephrase that: "Secretariat could get away."

Surely you are not suggesting that there were a few horses lurking out of the limelight in the 1970 crop who were capable of setting a new world record had things gone better for them?

Today's thoroughbred gene pool has no new genes in it. All the horses running today got their genes from horses running 100 years ago. While we may have weeded out some of the no-speed type of stamina -- ever notice you can trace Princequillo's stamina through a pedigree like you can trace greying? -- there is still a premium on soundness. It's not the graded stakes that do the winnowing out of the unsound, it's two-year-old training. The 50%+ of TBs that never win a race of any kind do not fail for want of stamina, and they devalue themselves and their parents.

It is a fallacy that old time racers' schedules are a tribute to their soundness. How do you know they were sound? How do you know they weren't unsound and run anyway, in a culture that had never heard the phrase "animal rights"?

Anyone with access to an old ARM should take a look at Bold Ruler's picture. He raced his four-year-old season on ruined forelegs. Forego was unsound. They said they were going to retire him when he came back from a race frankly limping. Buckpasser had repeated quarter tracks. A lot of the techniques that kept the oldtimers going are illegal now. (A lot were then.)

Today's trainer is more likely to know that his horse has sustained a minor injury like a small tendon tear because of the diagnostic devices available, and is less likely to run the horse unsound a) because of a cultural shift and b) because stud choices are based more on one supreme performance and less on a body of work. It pays to nurse the horse along until you are sure it's in shape to deliver the race of its life.

Tens of millions hang in the balance.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

bohemiastable — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:23:55 GMT

I wear Asic Gel running shoes--I feel more comfortable in them. Does it make me run any faster? No.

Brooks, Nike, New Balance, Adidas, et. all make quality shoes which I am sure would not influence my running time for 1 1/2 miles by a second or even a 1/5 of second given equal conditions, but I wear Asics. No other runner has ever told me I could go faster in another shoe. I met Marty Liquori (lets see if you know famous human runners as well) because he knew my brother---all he said about shoes get a good fit---Mario is a good fit

Why are so many stuck on riders? The horse runs the race. If, and this won't happen, a rider like DeShawn Parker got a top notch agent and he got him into Pletcher's barn as a first call rider---would he all of sudden make the barn cold? Would they lose many race with him and without Javier or Johnny V riding them?

Yes, Belmont is 1 1/2 mile track and a little different--as is every course where someone who rides it regularly will have some advantage. Yes, a truly horrible ride can get a horse beat. That said like my example of DeShawn Parker, Mario was a leading rider for a few years, just not on a "Marque Track" which leads me to believe given a few trips around the oval he is pretty sharp and will figure it out.

It is the horse--one more example--Near the end of two riders fantastic careers and both highly deserved HOF'ers--At one time you would say they were fearless--Chris McCarron and Sandy Hawley as one who was at the sale where Northern Dancer didn't sell with my Dad as a yearling and who saw the Bohemia Stable's star horse run on TV, I watched a few races and neither of these two riders although they still won at a good clip were ever going to dive at an inside hole near the end of their careers. Wide and safe, if you are on the best horse--it really doesn't matter most of the time.

They (Jockeys) are the Generals who plan the battle, not the ones who fight it. Hannabil or Alexander the Great could be the general of your troops and lose if they were using spears against guns.

It's all about the horse

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

chucky — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:18:31 GMT

In response to some comments:

Yes, the breed is more fragile today due to breeding and/or training.

We are basically breeding the same horse, the horse that you can enter from 6 to 9 furlongs races.

Black Caviar is one example of supposedly a sturdy horse. That is debatable. She runs only 6 furlongs races ON TURF!! Put her in the grueling Cox Plate or Melbourne Cup and she would not last a couple of races but of course she is not bred like the great thoroughbreds Makybe Diva, Phar Lap, Kinston or any of their great stayers. As a matter of fact, Australia had completely stop breeding stayers and mainly breeds 6 furlongs sprinters. Such a shame because I do not even consider 6 furlongs a horse race. But we are no different in our breeding for speed. We do not breed the great routers anymore. I remember not a single Grade 1 race of 6-8 furlongs in the late 60s but we got more today than ever.

Of course we balance that by shortening all the great races in the east such as the Personal Ensign, JCGC, Suburban, Brooklyn. We also eliminated the Malboro Cup and other great routing (thats 10 furlongs or longer) races. We do not have anymore great handicap horses. The handicap horses that Rachel and Havre de Grace ran against in the Woodward was pretty weak but the handicap division has been week for a lot of years.

The industry somehow forgot that it is the handicap division that kept fans interested in racing for the whole year.

In a nutshell, the industry needs to change pretty quick in order to survive.

Being subsidized by their toughest competitor (casinos) will NOT LAST MUCH LONGER. Once the casinos gets their political base in order, they will get rid of the "leeching" racetracks.

That is not an if, that is a when.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Slew — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:58:53 GMT

KSweatman: that was a point I brought up last year...once a horse enters the Derby, he must compete, barring injury, in all 3 legs. No horse can run in any leg unless he ran in the previous leg. And, oddly enough, when horses are first nominated to the KY Derby, it's not called KY Derby nominations...it's called Triple Crown Nominations.

Yoda: I take exception to your use of Black Caviar as an example of stamina. SHE'S A SPRINTER!

Jean in Windy City: Wasn't Lonrho slated to stand at stud in the USA...on loan from Australia? Quite a few American mares have traveled to be bred to such horses as Sea the Stars and Galileo. So we are getting outbreeding. And we should not forget our stallions at stud who are very good routers. I would love to breed a mare to Einstein, Bold Chieftain, or Blame. Unproven yet...their time will come.

Bill Two(?)...did you mean Belmont winner Summer Bird trained by Tim Ice?

So many are looking forward to the Belmont with great anticipation and the the greatest of expectations. I'm almost ready to hold my breath until it's all over ....but then...I might miss something. Go Baby Go...do what so few have been able to accomplish. I'm simply getting too old to wait any longer.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

hank — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:58:32 GMT

Well as usual another great article you havewritten here. Shame to see the triple crown series come to an end, this year has been the best one in a long time, Mr ONiel has to be given his credit he is sending out a very good pony, and very,very fit. The owner of that horse, IHA is a very good owner. I personelly think that this race is completely in Mario,s hands, really the derby was not that hard a ride, once he got settled after the start, preakness was a supeer easy ride, all he had to do was follow Bodemister,which he did perfectly, but this race is different, Matz and Romans may be outhorsed, but they will not be out jockeyed as the derby, where both horses had jock issues, I believe they will force Mario to have to make a tactiful decision some where along the way, something he has not had to do so far. I do love that IHA though, he absolute great horse, Everyone is trying to get a piece of his action but he is the one who is the big player in that outfit,

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

secretation — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 06:29:52 GMT

Steve,

I love this article. I've been saying this for years. It's not that the triple crown winners wouldn't have won with more opponents in the Belmont, but it is an interesting fact that they didn't face more. In some cases trainers skipped the Belmont when it seemed that trying to beat the Derby/Preakness winner was futile. This made the fields small. Today guys love to play the spoiler and a lot more take a shot at a potential TC winner. Count Fleet and Secretariat are two of my favorite horses of all time, but They scared away the competition. Who did they beat in the Belmont beside Sham between them? Count Fleet faced two horses, Secretariat three beside Sham. Their times showed how great they were and they would have won anyway. I'm not trying to disparage them, but I'll make a point in a minute. I do want to note that the most opponents faced in the Belmont by a triple crown winner is 7 shared by Citation and Seattle Slew. Smarty faced 8 and if Birdstone hadn't been run for second money, he would have won. In the Belmont, Sir Barton beat 2 horses, Gallant Fox and Whirlaway 3, Omaha 4, War Admiral and Assault 6. What if Smarty Jones, Real Quiet, and Silver Charm had faced such small fields? Perhaps the spoilers wouldn't have been there or the races would have been run a little differently. Maybe they would have won. And while we wouldn't dispute Secretariat or Count Fleet's greatness, would Omaha or maybe even Whirlaway or Assault have beaten the field Smarty Jones faced? However, I'm not so much saying the TC winners wouldn't have beaten bigger fields, but that maybe if some of the 2/3s winners had faced smaller fields, they might also have won.

The other point you made and that was sort of made in an earlier article before the Preakness is that training and race schedules are different. I think this is key to why we haven't seen a Triple Crown winner in a long time. I don't buy the idea that the horses are more fragile. Sunny Jim Fitzimmons said a tired horse is more prone to injury, the idea being that they had to race often to stay in shape so they wouldn't get hurt. The real reason they're raced so lightly now is nobody wants to risk the payoff in the breeding shed by getting a horse injured. The thinking is, the fewer races, the less chance of losing the breeding dollars. But now the horses aren't fit enough to take all three legs. Most of the great TC winners raced within two weeks of the KD and some ran races between the triple crown races. The trainers wanted to keep them in racing shape. I think if IHA wins, we should look at how his training and race schedule has differed from those who made previous attempts.

Thanks, as always, for your writing and insights.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Greg R — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 04:09:42 GMT

Reading the laments of people who blame the absence of Triple Crown winners on breeding for speed, I'm tempted at first to agree. In fact, I've often voiced similar complaints. But then I think about what wickedly fast horses the last three TC winners were!! All three of them outhoofed most of their contemporaries at age two, over short distances. If they had continued running in sprints later in their careers, all three of them could have been among the best sprinters in the land. So the whole speed vs. stamina debate is not exactly crystal clear, after all. Some horses that were well known as stayers have thrown many quick types. And many blazing fast horses have sired or dropped all-day plodders like Drosselmeyer, out of Golden Ballet. Makes one think of what Wayne Lukas said about a desirable stallion: "The three most important traits in a sire are speed, speed and speed." I would paraphrase that as, the three most important traits in a racehorse are sufficient speed early, sufficient speed in the middle and sufficient speed late. That kind of horse will always be the best bet. Barbaro, for instance!

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Racingfan — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:45:57 GMT

Anita B, if breeders today are just breeding for speed and not stamina, why are all those great stamina laden runners from the past found all through the pedigrees of today's horses? That is a statement that is said all the time but I can find no basis in fact for it what so ever. And it is funny to me to hear it said that horses from "back then" were the ones with stamina. I have a Blood Horse Silver Anniversary Edition that dates from 1916 to 1940 and guess what they were saying "back then"? That "breeders today are only breeding for speed". It all just sounds like lip service to me...LOL

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Jean in Chicago — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:27:19 GMT

Linda in TX: Don't forget Dancer's Image 1968 Derby disqualification for testing positive for Bute. But for years (maybe always) 'everybody' knew that behavior would be overlooked in the Derby that would never be allowed in other races. Objections are certainly allowed, they just aren't often upheld. In the Preakness, Gary Stevens said he would have claimed foul for repeated interference if Forty Niner had finished ahead of Winning Colors. In the 1989 Preakness Pat Day on Easy Goer did claim foul against Sunday Silence, but it was disallowed.

Maybe the stewards are just reluctant to move down any of the top finishers with such a large audience watching. It might be viewed as a 'black eye' for the sport and, unless it was as blatant as one jockey grabbing another horse's saddle cloth (photos do exist of this), they would have to explain their ruling to people who don't really want to hear about fine details.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

Jean in Chicago — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:02:39 GMT

Linda in TX: I was confused as well, but I think if you go back and reread that post he was betting that Bodemeister would command a higher stud fee than IHA.

Mary: Sham pushed Secretariat to records for the Derby and Preakness, Ron Turcotte pushed him in the Belmont because he said he didn't want any possible argument the way there had been after the Preakness.

I agree with everybody who would like more longer races. If you want short races, go watch Quarter Horses. Even Standardbreds, while each race is a mile, are putting in several heats to get into the main event. But I suppose this would require a major change in attitude toward both breeding and training. If a pinhooker is interested in selling a colt as a 2yr old in training (or younger), he wants one that can run like blazes for a few furlongs before the sales and its up to the buyer to hope he can spot somebody that will mature into a distance horse.

Isn't there somebody out there with a few zillion dollars to import a Nearco, Ribot or Bull Lea? Do stallions like Hyperion or Fair Play even exist any more?

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

yoda — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:03:54 GMT

Steve,

I love your analysis for 3 reasons:

1. You debunk the myth that thoroughbreds have "become" fragile in 30 years. Darwin would struggle with that "evolution" theory timeline!

2. I'm also tired of the 2nd myth you eliminated: that modern thoroughbred find a few races "grueling." Sure the demands are high. But look up the race record of Australia's Black Caviar to learn how durable the bred "still" is-at least in Oz. She's got 11 Group 1 wins in spite of injury setbacks.

3. You point out that jockeys are far more important in this race-at this distance-at this venue-than they typically are. Hopefully Superior Mario recognizes he has a capable horse-not an invinceable one-and doesn't become the equine Icarus. We can wait awhile before we worry about a "great" label for IHA.

I also think you need to check your math as I believe the 11 Triple Crown winners vanquished 48 opponents, not 42.

Thank you for not swallowing all the "easy" explanations about how tough it is to win the American Triple Crown. At least we haven't waited since 1970 like our friends in the U.K.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

tjconway — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:02:26 GMT

Dear Steve,

Agree with all thoughts. I'm surprised there hasn't been more TC winners based on the fact that they all carry 126 lbs. throughout the series....if it was a progressive handicap format, we'd be lucky to have three TC winners right now!

I still love Secretariat's 2:24 standard of reference. It's a great basis because the track itself has not changed in many,many years.

It'll be exciting as hell. IHA should go off at exactly 1/2.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

ksweatman9 — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:32:34 GMT

Mr. Haskins, I agree with you completely that the crown is much more difficult to win than it was yesteryear. I have a solution to the problem. If the top 20 money earners, and presumably the best 20 horses in the country were entered into the Kentucky Derby, and were the ONLY horses who could run in the triple crown races, problem would be solved, no more triple crown drought. A horse would be unable to skip the Preakness and join the field at Belmont. If they forfeit the Preakness, they would be ineligible to enter the final leg of the triple crown. No new entries would be accepted for the Preakness or the Belmont. A horse best at a mile and a half would have to jump through the the other hoops first. The 3rd jewel would never again be "stolen" by a fresh pony. The 20 best would all be playing on a level field. It would be fair, and therefore probably boring, but it would end the drought. If I'll Have Another loses, it will be because a fresh horse had a good day, not because IHA is any less terrific, gutsy, or talented. A note on Secretariat, only a fool would deny his greatness, but he wasn't unbeatable, ask Onion. This is horse racing, one never really knows how it will all unfold at the wire. Big Red swept the triple like no other, but it could've been different. It could've been Sham, it could've been a horse like Onion. This is an unpredictable game, the "best" horse doesn't always win.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

bohemiastable — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:03:51 GMT

I think it comes down to maybe a pin in the hoof or other mishaps,track condition, race riding, not just by the TC Nominee's rider by other jocks looking at the target on his back--just plain luck on the horse feeling good that day.

I suspect IHA will show up and if the stars in order he will win. I fluked a bet on him when paid big loved him in the SA Derby, knocked him to 2nd choice behind Dullahan (who I think is still the one he has to knock off) in the KY Derby but still cashed well. The Preakness I returned to his camp and he has never disappointed and doubt if he will in the Belmont.

He certainly doesn't seem to carry his track around with him winning on different surfaces, like him or not the trainer is top notch, and he shows nothing in his races he can't go another 1/4 mile. Jockey it has always been my claim that 1 length at best and good agents that separates 100 different good riders, it is the horse and racing luck not the rider. (To the comment on Cauthen--he was the hottest thing in racing at the time hardly an unknown despite his age--He was Stevie Wonderboy long before the horse of the same name)

Good for racing if he wins---at this point not for betting---I love the game--that's enough. Hope he wins

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

chucky — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:51:50 GMT

Linda in Texas or Alice in Wonderland --

You are missing the point, the point I am trying to make is horses are bred for speed today and that is why winning the TC is harder. Horses like Bodemeister (top milers) is what the breeders want. Breeders today do not want horses like IHA, although he does possess some speed.

Maybe, I am saying this the wrong way. Owner/buyers today want to purchase horses like Bodemeister instead of horses like IHA. They want fast ROI and the breeders supply these owners with fast milers.

Mr Haskins -- maybe, what they are saying is we do not breed great ROUTING horses like we used to and I agree. Now, if IHA wins the TC, is he a great routing horse or because he happens just to be a decent (not great) router running against 8-9 furlongs horses. To me, it is a great accomplishments and would ranked him very very good horse. Great? NO, not with the breeding for speed and 8 - 9 furlongs horses.

re: Haskin's Belmont Report: Why the Crown is Harder Now

fb0252 — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:11:44 GMT

and then, there's always the obstacle of the training the modern horse gets between Belmont and Preakness IHA has yet to see one 1.5 mile gallop, much less appropriate speed work as his trainer reverts back to his reputation.