Could the reason for the Triple Crown races having 14 or less horses years ago have something to do with horse transportation ?? The horses that ran years ago in the Triple Crown, did they come from California , Florida , etc ??

I would think there was not the same availability of horse transport as we have nowadays. Also, did the owners of those horses have the financial ability to ship horses across the country ?? These are questions that have to be raised before we want to compare the fields of today to yesterday ... things have changed over the years.

Could the lack of Triple Crown winners have something to do with breeding ? Do the horses of today lack that breeding to contend in all three Triple Crown races or has the breeding gotten better that one horse is not above any other ???

How can we say the fields are too crowded when Calvin Borel was behind the entire field and WON the Derby ??? No one said too many horses then, they said --- what a ride !!!

 Change has it's place but so does competition.

As far as TV viewing, maybe instead of a major station, someone might want to look at TBS or USA stations. The WWE(wrestling ) seem to do pretty good with viewership, plus USA carries reruns of NCIS almost every night --- something must be working.

NBC does a terrible job with the Derby and the Preakness.  ABC is much better and what they need to do is find another person like Jim McKay who always found a way to make it sound exciting.

The Triple Crown Races do not, I repeat...DO NOT need to be changed in any way, with the exception of limiting the Derby field to 14.  The Triple Crown is tough to win, but how many Derby horse have a bad trip due to traffic and then win the Preakness and Belmont.  Can you say Risen Star and Point Given.  The Kentucky Derby is cheapened when horses run in it that have no chance at winning at 1 1/4 miles.  Line of David and Nobles Promise come to mind out of this years race.  I know there were others, I just can't think of them now.  My point is, Churchill Downs needs to think of the tradition of the Triple Crown and not the almighty dollar.  If they honor the race, people will honor them and keep it the most watched horse race and the betting will follow.  Another issue is breeding.  Owners and trainers alike need to be more educated on the pedigrees of their horses.  See my comment on Line of David and Nobles Promise.  I don't care how well they train, if the horse is not bred to go 1 1/4 miles they won't win the race.  Take Noble's Promise.  Not only did his sire (Cuvee) NEVER win past 1 1/16th miles, but neither did his grandsire (Carson City), great grandsire (Mr Prospector), or great great grandsire (Raise A Native).  He got a little stamina from his dam, but his broodmare sire is Clever Trick, no stamina for 1 1/4 miles.  Any stamina came from his 2nd dam.  He ran good.....until the 1/8th pole and then he stopped.  If he really had a shot at 1 1/4 miles, why did he not run in the shorter Preakness?  The Triple Crown used to be about a place in history, now its about money and retiring the horse at the end of his 3 year old season for stud.  Until this mindset changes, racing will continue to suffer.

Maybe it is time to change things, though it is sad that we haven't had a horse that could meet the challenge.

Limiting the Derby to 14 would be a good start.  WAY too many horses!!

To keep the Triple Crown pure, no changes can be made until after a horse wins it.  Imagine making changes now and then we have a winner right away - it would always be tainted.  Once a horse comes along and wins it, we can start looking for changes to be made.  

I agree with the comments from

" Leave It ". If any changes were considered, wait until after someone wins the present day set - up. In the meanwhile, changes can be thought about / discussed, then implimented after a Triple Crown winner emerges. This way, there won't be any astericks ** in the record book.

14 in a field does sound reasonable.  However, as someone else stated, let's not change anything until we get a TC winner.

These guys crying that they have never seen a TC winner in their lifetime really break me up!  Too bad!  You'll never see another Babe Ruth either.....The longer you wait for something, the more climatic it will be.

PLEASE LEAVE IT ALONE UNTIL WE WIN #12!!!...LONG LIVE THE KING!!!...

Tim is correct of course.  But, what the TC could use most would be the return of potential of it actually happening – that is, a legitimate runner(s) capable of winning all three in a 5-week time frame.  The past 15 years says starters will have 5-6 lifetime starts with sprint, middle distance and only 1-2 mile-1/8 event resume.  One doesn’t’ have to be a trainer, vet or breeder to appreciate such horses aren’t likely to run three races further than they’ve ever attempted with such spacing.  Even with once-traditional routes of Florida, Southern California, Kentucky and New York and a more efficient communications plan would have saved the ’10 TC from back pages.

I’m not an advocate of altering the conditions or timing of the races.  It’s said that if one going to change putters it should be done when recent play is good.  Things aren’t so good lately for the TC and, change now will grease an already slippery slope.  Personally, I think radical change must force the hand of certain industry factions.

Specifically, a graded list of two and three-year-old stakes from May 1 through the following June 1 must be geared to truly condition runners to compete in the TC.  How about:

1) graded events (which earnings will continue an entry factor) will be at least 7f,

2) Priority for TC races will be given (in actual race entry conditions) to success (win, place and show) in events run at greater than 1m,

3) Most events will no longer be carded as sex-specific and therefore be “open”,

4) Two new (or existing) late preps should be at a 1 1/4m, one following the Derby.

The above initiative just like many other matters in desperate of reform will require something foreign to this business.  That is, reaching across state, corporate, and industry competitive boundaries will be necessary.  

There's no need to change the system now. When Citation won the Triple Crown in 1949 it wasn't til 1973 we had another TC Champion in Secretariat. I know the 31 year drought has been brutal, but that's the beauty of the Triple Crown series, it's only been done 11 times. It takes a special horse to win all three races, along with some good racing luck! I guarantee, if you can find a breeder who can get the right mix of speed and stamina in their horse, along with a trainer who can get his horse to run splits of 12, all the way around the track, regardless of pace or distance, you will have the next Triple Crown Champion.    

Well put. I have thought 16 would be the right amount for the Derby. I believe the auxillary gate holds four runners. Stop using it. That is how I came up with 16. As far as TV coverage , I don't know about that. I go to the races. Remember the year Spend A Buck won the Derby but opted to run in the Cherry Hill mile and another Jersey race for a big bonus if he won all three. The 3 crown tracks sure joined forces then and with the help of VISA offered their own bonus. Points awarded for the top finishers in the collective races.  

Leave the triple crown alone !!! There are few winners for a reason.

Limiting the Derby to 14 is not going to solve anything.  If they are good enough, they will get over the finish line first.  There will always be "almost" stories and there have been a few   deserving Derby winners from the #15-#20 ranks.

We do breed horses of sufficient quality to win the triple crown, they are just not appreciated by sportswriters (let's face it,I would not trust most of them with a $200 pony), handicappers ( betting knowledge only), and wealthy owners (with deep pockets but shallow horse sense).  We need all of them, but in the proper proportions with solid breeding and training operators who are able to earn a living and have the ability to spot and know what to do with a great horse when it appears before them in the rough. I am afraid that group has been shoved aside.  

My fondest memories in 2009 were of 2 horses that came in second in the Breeders Cup (Cloudys Knight (or even Iron Man for that matter) and Presious Passion (remember those fractions in a 1 1/2 mile race against one of the best horses in the world ?) and other than Steve Haskin, hardly anyone mentioned them.  Just not sexy enough.

LIMIT THE DERBY FIELD TO AT LEAST 18. THEN ALLOT POST POISTIONS BY GRADED STAKES THAT ARE RUN FOR SO MUCH MONEY IN THE SPRING MEETS.GOOD LUCK TO EVERBODY ON THERE RACING BETS.

I say leave the TC alone.  In another blog on here it said War Admiral won the derby in a field of 20 and went on to the TC of course.  Breed horses and train horses to win these races and keep the TC special

 While limiting the Kentucky Derby

field to 14 might make sense it would not be popular with owners of thoroughbreds as that is why there is 20 starters everyear and even at that there is always some horses left out in the cold.

As for tv viewing I think it would

be better if NBC or ABC or whoever,

had the contract for all three races.You have the build-up of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness with NBC and then along comes the Belmont on another channel with all kinds of different scenarios.

My only thought for this is to move the Preakness out by a week so it's 3 weeks from the Derby and then move the Belmont out a week to give a 4 week break between the Preakness & Belmont.  You might get more horses to run in all 3 and it is true that horses now aren't bred to run back to back 3 races in 5 weeks.  A lot of horses run 3 or 4 races all season.  3 races in 7 weeks is a little more reasonable.  Don't change the length of any of them, the Belmont has to be the hardest race to win. It proves the champion after a horse wins the first 2.  If you shorten it, you cheapen the win.

Run the Preakness first. Limit the Derby to 14 starters. Add $5M bonus to the triple crown winner.

Bring Back Sidewalks of NY.

We need to ABSOLUTELY limit the field of horses on the day of the Ky Derby. It's not the Ky Derby, it's a traffic jam!!  A fight to gain position and not get penned in, in the pack.  Need fewer horses at the Ky Derby. What's up with the bit 20 horse field anyway??  Geez.  If I had a viable race horse I would think twice about entering him in the Derby.

Also, ...horses are not as (o.k., I'll hear the critics right away), durable as the horses of yesteryear.  Can't anyone out-breed fragile ankles??  I was heartbroken (still am) when Barbaro was euthanized after his 8 month ordeal to live post-leg fracture.  Too much chaos to try to see the horse you're favoring at the Derby when 20  horses are in a frenzy to start racing as the gates open.   Got to get fitter horses.

I am convinced that before changing the Triple Crown the industry needs a commish of racing..too much greed and lack of communication within the races

Derby:  1st Saturday in May

Preakness:  1st Saturday in June

Belmont:  1st Saturday in July

Starts a new tradition, extends the Triple Crown Season.  Puts previous winners in a class of there own!

I believe 14 is a the right number for the Kentucky Derby.  In interviews during the broadcasts of the Triple Crown races it was noted that while many people had differing opinions about spacing the races...the distances...quotes from the 3 race tracks involved noted they had NO plans to change anything.....so the entire debate is a bit useless, and getting very tired.  Leave it alone...that way...when we finally do get another Triple Crown winner, (and we will) he/she will have earned it the right way...by meeting and defeating the challenge as it exists.

I think a reduction to 14 would be a good idea, I also like the idea of reexamining the entry requirements. Which horse was it that made the field on the strength of A couple Graded Stakes as a two year old then ran only an Allowance race in the Spring as a prep? Actually I guess that might have eliminated Mine That Bird also, but I don't see the value in the Demolition Derby start.

To change the Triple Crown would be an insult to the previous winners.

If it were made easier to win, how could we place future winners in the same class as the past winners? It would be a disgrace.

Wait for the great horse. It will be worth it.

The Derby should be limited to 1 full starting gate.  You will always have horses entered that should be in there.  There are too many graded 2 Y.O. races that qualify a horse based on graded earnings that dont belong going the distances of the TC.  It is owners who just want the prestige of running in the Derby that cost a legitimate horse a real chance because of the traffic.  I also think the TC races should be spaced 4 weeks apart.  If they could get another sponsor to put up a bonus for horses that run in all three race with a point system (like they used to have when Visa sponsored) would also help.

Yes, years ago owners did ship from the west coast to the east--by rail. Even going down into Mexico. Back in the day, the "Sport of Kings" was dominiated by BIG monied families, names like Belmont, Riddle, Whitney,Phipps, Ross, Belair Stud, Calumet Farm, Hertz. There were no lack of funds for shipping a horse to different tracks. It took longer because horses were shipped by rail car. And I don't mean the average stock rail car.

Perhaps part of the problem is breeding, maybe too much for speed and forgetting strength and stamina--geeze, Secretariat had enough hind quaters for two horses! And people said Bold Ruler colts couldn't run. Shot that one down.

track condition played a part in the last two derby winners as well as calvin bo=rail. so size off the field would not make a difference the best horse on that day will emerge the winner.

Spacing out the time for the races would be an awful idea.  Ruins the challenge of what the Triple Crown is.  A true champion wins the Triple Crown.  

We need to breed a stronger horse.  Breed more stamina and soundness back into our horses.  Stop inbreeding so much. Linebreeding is still inbreeding.  You get the best of the gene and the worst.  

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no to limiting the field for the Derby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You'll reduce the wagering by 30% or more doing that and the purse too. Bottom line is Horse Racing is a Business, take away revenue and it fails. Tracks are struggling all over the country enough without gutting more of their revenue.    

Don't change it - if you change it then it won't be the Triple Crown. It will mean nothing when a horse does win it.

First--no changes to the races or dates. Man has hurt the thoroughbred--too many first time buyers CAN'T wait until the horse has matured. They want their horse to win immediately. Todays horses have been "hot-housed" too much. Look at how many times horses ( in the 50's -60's) ran as two year olds/ careers. And carried weight too. Can't see Rachel carrying 129 lbs. and she is an awesome filly.

But hot housed all the same.

Limit the Derby to 14 and don't change anything else.

Allowing more than 14 is a recent change so it won't ruin a thing to stop allowing the extra 6 in.

the change needed most is to pull crown from abc,nbc,espn and give it to hrtv or tvg.horse racing people not soap opera people or juvenile world series from cuba delaying races people.

make the derby caller have a clear american voice.or go with no caller.who cares if you can't understand what he is saying might as well just mute it.

if they breed a better horse over seas then maybe some one can give a list of europeans that have won the greatest race.

when they do come over for other races you look at their past running lines and see 2 07 for 1 1/4.

in the old days trainers ran horses every week or every other week.this is called being paid to train.now they still work every week but trainer is only one getting paid.these high price horses are too pampered.look at your local tracks cheap horses with 60,70,80, starts.

what the triple crown really needs is gelding winner.

that is the only way a crown winner will ever put on a saddle after the belmont.

The Triple Crown generates great excitement in the spring but to keep that momentum going there needs to be a summer series prior to the fall Breeders Cup championships. The racing industry should focus on that instead of changing the Kentucky Derby.

My God, Capps, are you still alive and still interested in all this racing nonsense ??!!

Return to a bonus system that rewards winning the TC or  best performance by a horse that runs in all 3 races if no TC winner.

Reduce the field to 14-16 in the Derby or have Post positions selected by trainers/owners in order of graded earnings rather than a draw.If this had been done this year,Looking at Lucky probably would have won Derby and Preakness!!

I agree with Jodie who says NBC coverage sucks.I have watched the DERBY since early childhood and ABC brought so much more excitement,I remember the calls were better too.When I look back and try to figure out what or who made me a lifelong racing fan at 7yrs of age it was ABC and Jim Mccay

I agree with most, it's not the races, it's the horses.  We no longer have stamina in these horses.  I think the change needs to happen to the prep races, they need to get the prep races to be longer, enough to get stamina on these horses needed for their TC races.

This tests will give us legitimate distance horses that will be fit and able to compete in all 3 races.  The ones that can't handle the distances will be exposed well before the TC races.

I am very upset that I keep hearing things about the Triple Crown, how people say that the Triple Crown needs a lot of changes, in order for a horse to win it. I have been hearing that a lot of people think that the Triple Crown should be raced farther apart from each other, instead of being 5 weeks apart. For all the racing fans out there, just remember when Sir Barton won the first Triple Crown, back in 1919. He only won the Triple Crown in a two week time span. Also remember with Sir Barton, not only did he win the Triple Crown in a two week time span, he also won the Whitney Handicap along with the Triple Crown in that two week time span. With that, I believe that if we leave the Triple Crown alone, we will, eventually one day, find our Triple Crown winner. And remember also, that it took 25 years, between Citation and Secretariat for a horse to win the Triple Crown. And I know that we are well past that 25 years, we are now in our 32 year without a Triple Crown, but one day in the near future, we will find our one horse that could win the Triple Crown. So, in my opinion, leave the Triple Crown alone. It needs no changes. It just needs that special kind of horse to win it. Who knows, our one special horse could come next year, or the year after, or the year after that. We just have to wait and see what comes in the future.

l hate betting the Derby. With many races you can make an educated bet. But with 20 horses running it is a ridiculous roll of the dice. Increase the entry fee and let the top 14 horses go for it.

Ok, reduce the KD field to 14.  But leave everything else alone!!!  The TC isn't meant to be won every year.  It's difficult and it's supposed to be.  Go back to the basics - Breed the Best to the Best and hope for the Best.  Don't breed for glamour.  

We are 10 years into the 21st Century. Other sports have made numerous changes in their playoffs to increase the number of fans. It is past the time for the horse racing industry to make DRASTIC changes to its premier races - Triple Crown, Breeders Cup, etc. The industry is slowing dying due to many causes. It is at-risk for entering a comatose state from which it will never recover. Urgent actions are needed to revive wide appeal and greater involvement. Let Marketing Experts and revered horsemen - Lukas, Baffert, Pletcher, Mott, Shireff and many others - form a committee to brainstorm new ways to re-package the Triple Crown and other major racing series. If the status quo continues, we will not be having this discussion 10-20 years from now.

I've been saying for years we need to reduce the size of the KD field. Why?

What's the largest problem racing faces in the US today?  Image!  Imagine, on the first Saturday in May, with millions of people watching live and on TV nationally, a crowded  field of 20 vying for position on the club house turn. One horse near the front clips heels and, domino effect, several more go down beyond it. Several are injured and must be euthanized on the track.  Jockeys are injured and rushed off to hospitals with critical injuries.

This scenario is very, very possible!  Becasue of it I cringed every 1st Sat in May when that starting gate opens. Can you imagine the backlash against racing if the public were to experience that in living color?

Each year as they come out of the gate for the KD I hold my breath, it is not a race anymore, it is a Stampede, as we saw this year with Looking At Lucky. I cannot believe that they have not limited the field in this race simply for safety reasons alone, it DUMBFOUNDS me that for a buck or two they go on with this. Then as if for no reason what-so-ever they make a change in the Draw this year and take away ESPN's broadcast of it, there goes revenue down the drain in an industry that is struggling already... I am so dissapointed with the KD, I hope things get changed, for the Horses Welfare -  because it is just an accident waiting to happen out there in the Stampede known as The Kentucky Derby

I would be satisfied with putting Tom Durkin out to pasture. The missed stretch calls are bad enough, but he doesn't give any insight into the running of the race. Trevor Denmen(not sure of the spelling), is by far the best caller in the business right now.

TerriV, I agree with your brief but strong point about the problems involved in changing the TC.  What would happen if a noticable change did take place, and we had TC winners in 3 of the next 5 years? People would be up in arms, questioning the new rules instead of celebrating the new TC champions.  I say leave it alone.  The TC races have all been around for over 100 years giving them a long and colorful tradition that is worth preserving.  One day a horse will come along and win it.  

We need to be patient.  That's what you love about the sport.

I'd love to see smaller Derby fields.  I've felt for some years that the luckiest horse often wins the Derby while the "best horse" wins the Preakness and the best distance horse wins the Belmont. Even the odds often back that up as the Derby winner isn't automatically guaranteed to be the favorite in either of the following two, while the ones considered "the best" generally ARE favored in the last two regardless of their Derby finish.

But then again, I saw Secretariat, so the 32 years doesn't bother me.  I can still remember sitting on the floor absolutely sobbing as he ran his unbelievable Belmont - I can watch it today and still cry.  I will always feel blessed to have been alive and old enough (17) to have witnessed that horse and that event.

First of all, the spacing of the 'Triple Crown races' (which didn't become a real series until the 1930s at the earliest) is already generous; the Preakness was often run a week before or after the Derby, with the Belmont 4 weeks later, with a stop in the Withers, Jersey Derby or Met Mile between being the usual option.

It's not the breeding of the horses that has changed so much as the treatment of the horses from birth. Yearlings are too valuable as investment prospects to let them run and play and build up bone and muscle naturally. They have to be bulked up unnaturally to make them look like 3yos at the sales. Then it takes so much time to get that weight off of them, they can't race until late in their 2yo year. And don't talk to me about 2yo sales! The ones that don't break down soon after their 10 sec 1f breeze have to be retrained NOT to blast everything at once, more time wasted.

Then there are the current generation of trainers, who didn't come up under Jones or Burch or Whittingham or van Berg or Miller or Jerkens, but under converted QH trainers, who depended on a horse's innate stamina, which was commonplace in top bloodlines in the 1980s and is still in some parts of breed, to get them home. Only now, 6f specialists can win a bunch of G1s (gag!!!) and become sought after sires (and not just for QH mares), so our current miler-bred classic candidates have to be actually conditioned for 10f or 12f and too many trainers don't know how to do it.

Investment breeding has been responsible for so many ills of the sport - overpriced stallions, ridiculous yearling prices, huge books that squeeze good-but-not-fashionable stallions out of the market, timid campaigning of top runners (so as not to ruin their stud value by losing too often), the demand for a quick return,... It just breaks my heart when I look back to what the sport was and what it is now.