I do not think the TC races should be changed - if anything it is our breeding habits that should change.  If the races are spaced differently, it is a slap in the face to the horses of past that were able to win them at the current spacing.  It takes an amazing horse to complete the triplet - changing the races to fit the current horse should not be the aim.  Getting back to breeding durability and hardiness should be the goal in order to fit the standards that have been set for the racing greats of the past.  

With life as crazy as it is for most people, I thonk this is an excellent idea to reformat the series. Not only is the time between the races good for the horses, but the fans as well. Most of the fans are working people and to spread the 3 races out allows time for planning for the time and money to really enjoy them. And I love the idea of a camera following the connections, keeping us up to date with the horses, connections etc. It's a way to feel involved and informed. And I feel that those connections that have a true contender would not opt for another race over the "Big Three."

Just my humble opinion!  

Actually, I wouldn't mind having the Triple Crown races over a six-week period. They're currently over a five-week period. The Preakness definitely needs to be three weeks after the Derby, with the Belmont either three or four weeks after the Preakness. Not many of today's horses are physically strong enough to handle the quick turnaround of the current schedule.

@No Way - This post wasn't about changing the TC because the horses can't take it, it's about changing the TC so more people get involved with it, and hopefully that bleeds over to our other great weekends that we could put in between these events, but I digress you're just reading want you want to read.

Changing the format of the Triple Crown diminishes it.  Those 11 horses that won were unbelievable animals.  Strength, endurance and heart.  If it changes to make it easier, you could not rank any TC winner with those 11.  You'd have to call it something else because it sure wouldn't be a triple crown if it was made easier for the horses of today.  Breed back to endurance and strength and quit breeding for speed that is why the breed is weakening and also make sure stallions don't have traits that will affect future generations such as bad feet.  What good is a fast horse who's feet are too bad to run properly?

People need to realize that the current format was not used for all of the Triple Crown winners. In some cases the Preakness was run before the Derby. I agree that the distance and the tracks do not need to change. Giving a few extra in between the races would be a good solution in my book.

I agree with No Way!!  Don't change the current format of the triple crown--the most exciting series in horse racing!  Winning the triple crown is supposed to be difficult--if elements were changed to make it easier to win, it would no longer be special.  Citation, Secretariat, Slew, Affirmed, and the other triple crown winners are legends because it is so difficult to win!

The problem is not the spacing. The problem is the need to breed more durable horses.  

With modern thoroughbred is so terribly in-bred and this could be is a very difficult task, but it can be done.

Breed racehorses like it was done before-for stamina and soundness and not for just raw speed and flashy looks in the sales ring.

If the timing of the Triple Crown races needs to be changed at all, perhaps it should be for 4 year olds.

This serves 2 benefits; it gives 2 year olds more to time to grow and you could start racing them later.

It also may keep some of the "Big Horses" or the popular horses that every one comes to see racing longer.

I favor anything that will make racing safer for the horses and jockeys. If spacing out the Triple Crown races would help, then I am all for it. And it wouldn't be a slap in the face to the previous Triple Crown winners. If anything, it would just highlight how truly special these horses were. We must do everything we can to make racing safer. Breeders continue to breed to unsound stallions, and they continue to get unsound mares in foal. Looks like most of the safety efforts will have to be made by stopping the drugging, stopping the racing of unfit horses, track surface improvements and carefully monitoring how much wear and tear racehorses are going through.

I'd eliminate the Preakness, which is a has-been race at a has-been track. Make the Triple Crown a Kentucky Derby, Belmont Stakes, and Travers Stakes series.

I'd also give the older horses a Triple Crown again, with none of the races at a distance less than 10 furlongs, and only one race allowed to be 10 furlongs. I think California already has an older horse triple crown (Santa Anita Handicap, Hollywood Gold Cup, and Pacific Classic), and should honor Lava Man as it's first winner.

To change the triple crown would be giving up on the tough, classic type horse.  Remember, there were several triple crown winners who won a race between the Preakness and Belmont.  Plus, their prep for the Derby was often less than two weeks before the big day.  Don't change the triple crown - let's return to breeding for DURABILITY and STAMINA.

Hello Gene and Patrick..Initially and to correct one of your comments...The Haskell Invitational..run at Monmouth Park and won by Big Brown this year is contested on the first Sunday in August vis-a-vis the first Saturday as you noted...The Triple Crown series was designed purposely and solely to provide an platform for the finest thoroughbreds to run in three of the most tested and demanding races at varying distances..early in their lives..and probably for some they will never run at these distances ever gain while racing..all within an window of five weeks..Yes indeed it does take an special animal to not only compete in this event..but one of exceptional durability and stamina and tenacity...and above all..proper and intelligent race horse management by the owner(s) and trainer..Quite obviously not ever three year old is up to the task..The ones whom do participate in all three should be commended and hopefully one will emerge victoriously as the Triple Crown winner...Essentially thats why there have been only 11 winners of this coveted crown since its inception in 1919....No one ever said it was easy...So why alter w/tradition..Thats what makes its so alluring and challenging...and so elusive....It is truly the test of the champion..And there have been only 11...Thank you always for your kind window.....Regards ..Steve Stone..East Hanover..New Jersey.....

Any arrangement spacing out the races a bit more will be good for the sport in my opinion.  Governing sports bodies need to be cognizant of paradigm shifts and be appropriately flexible.  It's no secret that the recent thinking of trainers is that horses need more and more time between races.  Let us show that we accept the changes in our industry.  Such a change will promote greater participation of the top performers in the Kentucky Derby by making the owners and trainers happy and create a domino effect of satisfaction culminating in the happiness of the fans.

I don't think they should be changed. The races are grueling,but it shows a true champion. That's why so few horses have been able to do it. if you changed the TC races it just would not have the same excitement.

Do NOT change the triple crown series, a great horse shall win it, we should not cater to less than that, all the other Greats had to overcome it, and thus, so must the next, as long as it takes, that what makes the horse GREAT....Why is everyone wanting to baby everything? Its just wrong.

THE TRIPLE CROWN FORMAT SHOULD CHANGE. ALL SPORTS HAVE. THE NFL HAS MADE CHANGES TO HELP PREVENT MORE INJURIES OVER THE YEARS AS TODAYS ATHLETES ARE FASTER AND STRONGER. IF THEY WANT TO BREED FOR SPEED THEN SPACE THE RACES OUT, TO ALLOW THE HORSES MORE TIME. ITS ALL ABOUT THE HORSES FIRST. IF THEY WANT TO START BREEDING FOR DURABILITY AND ENDURANCE, THEN LEAVE IT ALONE.

@Laura & @No Way - The triple crown hasn't always been the KD(2weeks) Preakness (3weeks) Belmont.  And spacing the races along 1st Sat in May, Memorial Day Weekend, and July 4th Weekend would actually make winning the TC harder as every horse would be fresher, right now the Preakness is almost a gimmee.  

@Everyone - The TC has changed en.wikipedia.org/.../United_States_Triple_Crown_of_Thoroughbred_Racing

in fact out of the 11 only the most recent 3 have one it in it's current format.  please click that link and realize the TC has changed.  

I agree w/ handride. The Derby stays where it is, the Preakness on Memorial Day weekend, the Belmont on the 4th of July would make huge inroads on patronage. Whole weekends of racing could be developed on this system.

And thanks for mentioning the previous changes to the races. Always makes me laugh when people say the others did it the way it was. Wasn't it Sir Barton who won the Preakness a week before the Derby was even run?

When Sir Barton won it the Preakness was at 1-1/8M and the Belmont was 1-3/8M.  Citation also had more spacing between the Preakness (May 15) and Belmont (June 12).  The early TC winners usually ran in the Preakness about a week after the Derby though.  

handride, a little more research. The order of the races may have been different but look at the timeline of the races, even closer than they are in modern history. Sir Barton 4 days between the first and second leg, some of the others ran back in a week.  

Some people want to change everything about it, even some who have won 1 or 2 legs, but that is because they think we all want to see a TC winner and that it will help racing. I do want to see a TC winner, but spreading it that far out will diminish it IMHO. July 4th, big mistake. Yes we'd get the horseplayers and the die hard fans, but tv viewership would plummet even lower than it is. People go on camping trips, to the ball games to watch fireworks, have cookouts etc, not gonna be hanging around in the house watching horse racing, not the casual fan, nope won't be doing that.  

I think it would be crazy to screw around with the current Triple crown format. Racing already ruined the handicap triple crown and stretched Saratoga to a week and a half too long, thereby squeezing the specialness that is the 'SPA'. The TC is SUPPOSED to be hard. This is the whole point. People (in racing)have lost patience and (some) trainers have babied their horses. One of the main reasons is that horses today don't have enough bottom under them coming up to the triple crown which is why we see so many horses fall short. I believe people who make the rules think that racing needs a triple crown winner to revive the sport. I agree, however not to the extent that the rules must be changes to accomplish this feat. I think we could've had a couple of triple crown winners if not for some bad luck, like Silver Charm & Real Quiet to name two. It will happen again in time. A triple crown winner just won't mean the same if it's done with a month (or more)between races.

Gene might be onto something. Let's face it, the Triple Crown is horse racing's once a year opportunity to capture the sporting public's attention. The only thing fans love more than a horse is a horse with a great story (see Funny Cide and Smarty Jones not Big Brown and Fusiachi Pegasus). Why not look for ways to make it more exciting; like more time between crown races and up close and personal stories like Gene suggests. Heck, why not examine running graded stakes at night tied to a game show with contestants and everything. The point is racing needs new and creative thinkers to make it a great sport (which has a financial foundation in most states thanks to by state approved casinos) competitive with other sports we watch on tv. For you doubters, what is the one other highly regulated sport that in 1950 was one of the 3 biggest draws in sport. Boxing. It's dying. So what happened, someone had the idea of watering down hard core hand to hand combat (which by the way is how boxing started), called it  Ultimate Fighting, and made it into something that men (who could be just as much racing fans)love to watch. Now it's the fastest growing sport in America and networks show it on Saturday night. Do you think boxing purists scoff at it. Of course. But so what. How many people reading this right now can tell me who is boxing's heavyweight champion? I don't even know and I've been watching the fights since I was 10. But I can tell you who Kimbo Slice and Randy Courture are. Think about folks. Obstacles are opportunities if you have vision. So let's break it down... the three governing racing authority's who run the triple crown races would need to put their short term interests and what have you done for me lately attitudes aside, and act more like the responsible stewards of the game they are charged to be. I know most horse players don't always think about realizing returns in the long run, but the smart ones like Gene do.  

The game needs plenty of changes if it is going to survive as we know it today.  We're too hung up on tradition and keep overlooking those things that will benefit the horses and make the game more popular to other than the hard core fans that will follow it regardless.  Add a week between the Derby and Preakness...it's been proposed many times and what does it hurt?  

leave it be but change the way they draw post places for the derby let the first five money earners draw for the first five spots they chose then next five                                chose theres and so on and so on.  This would make the horses run more and maybe they would breed horses for more durability

This idea of a new format to the Triple Crown is absolutely RIDICULOUS!!!!! If a horse won these three races under the "new format" they would not even compare to TRUE champions like Citation and Secretariat. The Triple Crown is hard for a reason. It is supposed to be the best three year olds in the country. If you want to see another Triple Crown winner tell breeders to start breeding better horses, not to keep breeding pretty horses with speed and no heart so they can make a quick buck. What are they going to do next, give the Derby winner a head start?

I am torn about this issue. While I think spreading it out would be better for the horse, you have to remember that in 59 years (1919 to '78) only 12 horses had managed to win it. Sure it has been run with less down time... but has it ever been spaced out longer than what it is now? That is a legit question. I don't know the answer. Does anyone know?

There have only been 19 horses to win the Derby, the Preakness, and lose the Belmont. 11 of those have been in the 30 years since Affirmed. So I mean... I don't think the system is broken. I think there just hasn't been a horse to have that last little bit of umph to make it down that loooong stretch at Belmont. Though Silver Charm and Real Quiet sure tried. A 3/4 of a length and a nose... sigh... I STILL think Charm would have won if Touch Gold had looked him in the eye. Man I love that horse.

If more horses than ever are getting THAT close... I don't think the system is broken. It is just separating the champions from the legends. Which is the whole point of the series. The TC is the rarest of all sports honors. And while spreading it out might not change that... until it gets to the point of hopelessness... we shouldn't give it up. Cause it doesn't look hopeless to me.

That is what the media should be talking about. I mean we are only 5 years past the 25yr dry spell mark that was between Citation and Secretariat... and we have had several thrilling close calls. So I am not too worried about it. It will happen. And when it does it will just be that much more special. And TC winners seem to come in sets of 3s (or 4 in the 40s) so when the flood gates DO open... we will get our fair share of history. And the 30+yr wait will have been worth it. Earning immortality isn't easy and it shouldn't be!

Kate, follow the link it gives the time line. The last race has been up to a month after the second but that's when they ran the second within a week of the first race.

The person who said move the Preakness a week later, that would put it on Memorial Day Weekend. There again you'd have an issue similar to the 4th of July suggestion. Then of course you'd have to move the Belmont back a week, to keep it at least 3 weeks later. The tweaking would never end. As close as they've come it makes it exciting to see if it's going to happen. I think instead of helping it'll be more like oh well we saw it, let's move on to something else. The other thing is the talk about changing the distance since they don't run the Belmont distance ever again in their career, that might make more sense, because a lot of horses run within 3 weeks. It's just that last race is not just the third in the series, if you add all the preps, that's what finally wears them down. Hey there you go  a win and you're in like they're doing in England 20 of them.

Being a traditionalist I don't want to see a change, but then again look how successful the wildcard format change has been to baseball, a sport with huge tradition.

Something to think about.

I hope no one would seriously consider changing the Triple Crown.  Those 11 horses should always stand out for their accomplishments.  Many may not realize that for some of the earlier TC winners, the spacing of the races was even closer. Several had run as many as 10 races before they went to post in the Derby. No, I'm concerned about the long term effects of some sire lines due to very apparent inherited weaknesses that appear in their offspring consistently.  Keep the TC as is & change other practices in our sport.  Don't let the 11 winners ever be over shadowed by making things easier.

we think CHANGE for the betterment & EXPOSURE of the sport of KINGS is the way to go...some house cleaning is in order here...keep the DIRT & do the 1st sat. in may,june, & a 4th of july BLOWOUT  for the GREATEST SHOW ON DIRT!!!Long Live Bellwether!!!

great blog...please keep it  up!!!LLTK!!!

NO!

Ralph,

The NFL makes change for the sake of money only. The bye week and extending the playoffs almost into February were done in the name of the almighty buck. The longer the season, the longer the advertising money comes in.

I don't care one bit if they change the Triple Crown Format and its done for the right reason, that being the welfare of the animals. That is more than justifiable. If they change the format for other selfish reassons I am totally opposed to that.

I'm on the fence with this - not surprising since my horseplaying days began in the historically fence-sitting state of Maryland (that's a Civil War reference, nothing more).

In the end I do feel this would be better for the horses, so I'd agree with it, although I do think we run the risk of A) having a richer race steal horses and B) losing public interest by drawing it (the TC) out too long (think of the NBA playoffs and how god-awfully long they are).

My first change to the TC would be to ligthen the weights the horses must carry.

I remember proposing something similar to this on alt.sport.horse-racing a couple of years ago, and was practically shouted-down by the "traditionalists".

Here's some food for thought:

The Triple Crown is the equivalent of the Grand Slam of golf.  If the Masters, US Open, British Open, and PGA Championship were played within a 4-6 week span, would that not diminish the public's interest in golf for the rest of the year?  As it is, having the Majors spread out over the year probably helps maintain interest among fans.  Spreading out the Triple Crown races might very well help maintain public interest in racing through the summer, after which the buzz around the Breeders' Cup would just be starting.

If the Triple Crown races were spaced a full month apart, the horses would be better rested -- but would they be *sharp*?  Would it not make it *harder* for trainers to keep their horses in shape between races?

If spreading the races apart would make it easy, why haven't there been more English Triple Crown winners?  Their races are spread months apart (and always have been), so by that logic they should have had dozens of champions.  But there have been only 15 in over 150 years -- the last one was in *1970*, and the last one before that was in *1935*.

I don't necessarily support this proposal -- but I don't think it should be automatically dismissed because it "violates" "tradition".

As for changing the TC format, the one change I would make would be to push the Preakness and Belmont back by one week each.  There is a precedent for doing so, and that is prior to 1969 there was only a two week gap between the Preakness and Belmont (the '68 Belmont was actually on June 1, which was part of Memorial Day weekend since prior to 1971 Memorial Day was observed on May 30 and several other Belmonts were actually contested in late May), meaning only three horses have actually swept the TC in the format as we know it (the last three).  I don't think it would hurt anyone if the Preakness were moved to the fourth Saturday in May and the Belmont were on (usually) Father's Day weekend.