PAULICK BELMONT INDEX brought to you by Vinery LTD: RACING AND BASKETBALL
In our last week of three-year-old Triple Crown polls, there is little movement in our top ten. One newcomer to Paulick Belmont Index brought to you by Vinery LTD, Todd Pletcher-trained Interactif, debuts at 9. Additionally, Dave In Dixie makes his first PBI entry in 13th place.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the voters who took part in this year’s Paulick Index. And a special thanks to Vinery LTD who made the entire series possible through their sponsorship of this feature. See you again next year!
By Ray Paulick
Thursday night marks the tipoff of the NBA finals, where the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers will be meeting for the 11th time in the championship round. It is one of the great rivalries in all of sports, beginning with the Wilt Chamberlain-Bill Russell era of the 1960s, continuing with Magic Johnson and Larry Bird in the 1980s, and carrying on now with Kobe Bryant vs. a deep and talented team led by Rajon Rondo.
It’s the kind of NBA Finals commissioner David Stern must have dreamed of: two great franchises in major markets certain to attract a huge prime time television audience and media attention from around the world.
It hasn’t always been that way. In the mid-1970s when CBS Sports broadcast the NBA, the finals were shown on tape delay, beginning at 11:30 p.m. The NBA worked hard under David Stern to get back in the “major” league of sports.
And so it goes with horse racing.
This Saturday’s Belmont Stakes isn’t the Celtics vs. the Lakers. It’s more like the Seattle SuperSonics and Washington Bullets. Without the Kentucky Derby or Preakness winner in the lineup, it is attracting zero interest in the general and sports media. The Belmont is still the biggest thing going in horse racing on the first Saturday in June, but the horse racing world is getting smaller and smaller, and we need an infusion of new blood.
What can be done to make the Belmont more interesting? For starters, there needs to be some continuity from the Kentucky Derby to the Preakness to the Belmont. This year, we have no horses that will have run in all three events.
Three things need to happen.
First, the tracks must get together and work out a new schedule. Horses race less frequently today than they did 10, 20, or 30 years ago, and take more time between races. Blame it on the breed, permissive medication, or more tentative trainers. Times have changed. Virtually every single Kentucky Derby prep race has been moved to an earlier spot on the calendar, yet the spacing between the Triple Crown races has not changed. It must.
Second, no one really cares about a mile and a half race on the dirt. If they did, we would have more of them. Yes, I know, it’s a tradition. So was having American League pitchers step up to the plate and bat, something that hasn’t happened in 1973 when the designated hitter was introduced, and Major League Baseball seems to have done just fine without that tradition. One of the only redeeming qualities of the Belmont’s distance is the fact it may be the only race of the year where fans get to see the start of a race right in front of the Belmont grandstand. Put together a panel of horsemen to come up with a new distance for the Belmont.
Third, go out and get a Triple Crown sponsor and bring back two bonuses: one for winning all three races, and a second one for those years when there is no Triple Crown winner but the horse that performs the best in all three races gets a minimum $1-million bonus. That might at least add some interest to the race.
This year’s running will be the third time in 11 years the Belmont was run in the absence of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner. Get used to it. Or change.
Ice Box is one of two Grade 1 winners in the 2010 Belmont lineup and remains my top pick. Stately Victor is the other G1 winner, with Fly Down having won a G2, and Game on Dude and Interactif having G3 wins to their credit. It is not the most inspiring race, but, hey, the 1978 NBA Finals between Seattle and Washington was a seven-game thriller—to those who cared.
Tags: Bank the EIght, Bushwhacked, Dave in Dixie, David Stern, Devil May Care, Drosselmeyer, First Dude, Fly Down, Game On Dude, Ice Box, Interactif, jackson bend, Make Music for Me, NBA, Paulick Belmont Index, Paulick Report, Spangled Star, Stately Victor, Stay Put, Uptowncharlybrown, Yawanna Twist
June 1st, 2010 at 3:50 pm
No No and Yes.
No to a new schedule. It should be hard to win a Triple Crown, and running 3 times in 5 weeks should be part of it. Plus spreading it out more will kill any momentum that builds when you have someone win the first two. Heck I follow the horses and I by the first Sat in May I can’t remember half the field cause they ran so long ago.
No on changing the distance, getting the 12 furlongs shows true heart and class, the things you want in a Triple Crown winner. Any why should only turf horses go long? The Brooklyn is back to 12 furlongs, and they should extend the BC Marathon to 2 miles to separate it from the classic and help expand the interest, and the breed.
Yes on a bonus for the series. I understand if you don’t need to run all three, there is no reason. So lets give people a reason.
June 1st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Agree completely with JC Frank. No No and Yes.
Perhaps the greatest race in modern thoroughbred racing (at least in the U.S.) was the 1973 Belmont with Secretariat, even more so than his Derby. As for no one caring about a 1 1/2 mile race on the dirt, I think that the “no one” that you speak of is really the media. Perhaps because they can’t find an angle to write about unless there’s a Triple Crown on the line. Instead of shortening the Belmont, lengthen some other races and maybe the breeders will have some incentive to breed for stamina and soundness (instead of just speed).
June 1st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Keep the Belmont 1 1/2 mi. distance, it is “the test of champions”, but adding another week between Derby and Preakness would definitely help in most cases. Throughout Thoroughbred racing and the TC, there have been changes made with these races……..some changes are good and do not deter from the integrity of the contest, such as 3 wks between the races. Good marketing is paramount and it should begin at BC time for the following year!
June 1st, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Four Cats:
It is the breeders and the owners buying their products at public auction who don’t care about 1 1/2 mile dirt races. If anything, I think the media has fallen in love too much with the tradition of the Belmont.
Once owners demonstrate through their auction expenditures that they care about stamina and soundness (don’t hold your breath), the breeders will adjust, just as they have adjusted to bringing precocity and speed to the sale ring over the last 25 years.
June 1st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
This article shows the hypocrisy in sports writers, and, casual fans. What happened to “doing what is best for the horse”? Words to forward a particular agenda, and useful for the uninformed.
Want a Triple Crown winner, limit the Derby size (12) so the best horse has an equal chance of winning instead of “horse with the best trip”. Super Saver was no where the best in the Derby, BUT, because of field size (20), he got the win, BASED ON THE BEST TRIP. Four top horses that could have made a legitimate run for the Triple Crown were compromised by field size, not performance! Lookin At Lucky, probably the best 3 year old in the country. Ice Box, Paddy O Prado, and American Lion. You cannot have a Triple Crown winner unless the best horse actually wins the Derby. Look at all the Triple Crown winners — how many horses started in the Derby those years. Elimination trials work in Quarter horses, AND, Harness racing. It’s about time we have elimination trials for the Derby to limit size (12) for a equal opportunity race ( as much as possible)!! Leave everything else alone or else you have false champions — but sports writers could care less as long as they can say “we saw the best today”. Sports writers — the biggest drawback to racing today!!
June 1st, 2010 at 4:43 pm
This way of thinking that you submit in your three points is just the way that had made a deep and worst impact on breeding. Make the things easier it’s the wrong way . Make the things easier (more time between races, shortening distances, etc) it’s the origin of a weakier thoroughbred. And if you add owners that only are worried for the value as stallion, or calculating where to make more money, owners that forget the glory of the classic races (like Mr. Tsui with Sea The Stars) you are working for a weakier racing industry.
June 1st, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Buyers (what few are left) want speed over a distance of ground. Don’t fool yourself, when everyone says “all buyers want is speed”, the truth is what every owner REALLY wants is a Triple Crown winner. They want Stallions (even that has lost it’s luster). Most owners I know would be happy to break even. And NO buyer wants a fragile horse.
We have suffered losses and setbacks, crooks and cheats, blind greed and shallow integrity. Short-sighted leadership. Shortening the Belmont would be just another towel hitting the floor. Throw ‘em in. Breeding failed because we allowed steroids in the game, and destroyed the idea of “class”. Defend it all you want, it doesn’t take a genius to see the rampant effect of decades of medication abuse across the entire industry. And the financial crisis just put an exclamation point on an already hurting industry. The perfect storm. Just look at the latest issue of BloodHorse magazi… I mean BloodHorse pamphlet. Is this what we’ve reduced ourselves to? The industry is hurting from top to bottom. Purses to PURSES. We need to change the game at it’s core. It’s not about the length of races. It’s not even about medications and fragility (we’ve blown that one). RIGHT NOW, its about embracing the GAMBLER, and the OWNER. It means caring a little less about the various entities that control the sport, it means having those who historically took and took, used and used, to give back a little (stop laughing). It means accountability for the Trainers, vets and commissions (PLEASE stop laughing).
But I guarantee this: Make life better for the GAMBLERS and OWNERS, you fix the sport.
June 1st, 2010 at 6:44 pm
The 21st century is supposed to bring progress. Shortening the Belmont Stakes is not progress.
It would amount to pandering to weakness, to an unwillingness (or inability) to breed or train a true classic horse.
Without tough and sound horses, we might as well retire Thoroughbreds and watch Quarter Horses instead…..
June 1st, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I think FourCats above nailed the issue - the media only gets excited if there is a Triple Crown angle because they don’t know what else to write about. However, the Belmont is a marvellous race, standing alone or as the finale of the Triple Crown. It would be a travesty to shorten the race. And yes, it is a demanding schedule, but it is supposed to be demanding. Horses used to start a lot more. If breeders would actually breed for the classics, and if American trainers were skilled enough to condition classic contenders for a real campaign, we might see another TC winner this decade. Meanwhile, top trainers talk about “six weeks” between races now. Ridiculous. Look at the history of racing this century, and it is readily evident that such spacing of races is an anomoly never seen before. (Perhaps this is a way to milk owners of their money while keeping unsound horses in the training barn doing nothing? Been there, been victimized by that.)
June 1st, 2010 at 7:51 pm
By the way, didn’t anybody pay attention to Greg Avioli’s latest “foot in mouth” comment that “the Breeder’s Cup is not a popularity contest”? Excuse me? Does he really think that he owes us breeder/owner/racing fans no respect at all? Responsiveness to members is a key function of his job. I guess he has forgotten that. Ray - why don’t you address this arrogance in an upcoming article? Seems ripe for serious discussion.
June 1st, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Nice, Lexington. Somehow Ray’s Triple Crown story is an excuse to attack Avioli?
Back the current thread… As much as I respect Ray’s opinion, there didn’t seem to be a huge problem with the Triple Crown when Real Quiet, Charismatic, War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones and Big Brown won two of the first three legs. If any of them had won the Belmont, would the game be in a different place than it is now?
people seem to focus on the wrong issues here. One could argue the big events are not our problem — Derby ratings have been great the last couple years as NBC has promoted the heck out of the event and, lest we forget, Smarty Jones’ Belmont got a 10 — an unheard of rating for all but the most-watched sports events.
The real issue is the day-to-day grind. Harder to fix. Sometimes boring to analyze. But that’s where we’ve lost market share to other forms of gaming. Look at the annual drop in handle since 2004 to now — it’s bad on its own. Look at it compared to the growth in other forms of wagering and it’s truly sobering. A Triple Crown winner may help, but not much.
June 1st, 2010 at 9:14 pm
There’s been a lot of heated discussion about changing the triple crown format. If you don’t believe me check out Laura Pugh’s piece entitled “Change Needs to Happen”. I’ll bet she never imagined her ideas would rack up 133 comments!
Here is a similar situation, Ray Paulick, how many comments can you fit in your box? They’ll be a comin’. The point is that thoroughbred racing is at a crossroads. On one hand, as the Paulick Report reported a record number of hits to this site from racing fans wanting to know all the news in racing and are excited about the future. And on the other hand there are many who feel horse racing is on the way out with earlier threats of Saratoga and Belmont closing. A couple of ESPN commentators a while back, when getting their next topic of discussion, The Kentucky Derby results, both agreed to go to the next topic since no one cares anymore about the Derby.
Laura Pugh, Nick Zito, Ray Paulick and many others are not asking that we make the track a circle instead of oval, or that the horses have to stop, eat 5 ounces of oats and head back out on the track during a race. The suggestions are to “tweak” the championship series to be safer and more fan friendly. How many “don’t touch the Triple Crown” fans out there are hollering to change the NCAA football championship to a playoff bracket?
I remember when the shape of a football was like a big fat watermelon. But some teams started to throw it and then more teams and soon they streamlined it to fly through the air like a bullet instead of a fat balloon. And helmets were leather and they changed them to plastic and everyone broke their nose until someone had a positive idea to put a steel bar across the front to give the player protection.
Every sport has gone through changes to keep up with the times and to make the sport more exciting, more modern. The changes being discussed here and other places are just tweaks, they are not a revolution.
Horse racing is hurting, and in some cases bleeding and a shot of lasix about now might just be what the vet would order. Keep the changes small, positive and in the best interest of the sport and it’s athletes and animals and horse racing will grow and thrive.
June 1st, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Daniel Stern has his marquee match-up, but the NBA has about as much credibility as NASCAR and professional wrestling. NASCAR changes its rule book every week to get the results and they want (exciting finishes) and Daniel Stern has his ace in the hole, Dick Bavetta, to make sure the big market teams do well in the playoffs. For more details, checkout Mike Donaghy’s 60 Minutes interview a few months back. I waiting for the ESPN expose on Outside the Lines, but wait, they’re invested in the NBA playoffs.
My point is: one of the best things horse racing has going for it is its traditions and ties to the past. Why sacrifice that in pursuit of short-lived mainstream attention.
BTW, Wes Unseld was, and still is, one of the true class acts in professional basketball. It was very nice to see his pic on the front page, despite having his well-earned championship demeaned.
June 2nd, 2010 at 7:55 am
Wow is that Jack Sikma? Your analogy was lost on me Ray, because the 1978&1979 Sonics/Bullets rivalry was the most exciting 2 years of sports in my life. Our Sonics were just a cinderella team when Lenny Wilkens came along and brought the championship home after we;d lost to the Bullets the year before.
People were dancing in the streets. Thanks for the memories
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:12 am
I’m with JC Frank. No changes. No, everybody doesn’t get a trophy. You have to be GREAT and we haven’t had a horse rise to that level. If REAL QUIET gets up we aren’t having this discussion.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 am
I think the problem that Ray and others are trying to solve is how to make the Belmont ‘interesting’ when there is no TC on the line. Now I’m not sure why that is a problem other than there are too many million dollar G1’s these days. The way to fix that is put up a bonus for winning the TC, and then a bonus for winning 2 of the 3. Add a 10-5-3-1 point system with a payout to the top 3 horses. Give owners and trainers a reason to run in the Belmont., and give breeders a reason to breed horses to run 3 times in 5 weeks.
Look at Monmouth, the $ is there and there was a couple of horses turning back in a week. It can be done,.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:29 am
The industry doesn’t owe fans or the media a triple- crown winner. If a triple-crown winner became a frequent thing, the fans and the media might well lose interest. It’s true that a 20-horse field in the Derby is a travesty on what stake racing should be. Churchill Downs is pandering to God-knows-what. The 12 that fit in a starting gate should be the max. How to decide the 12? That’s a detail the great minds in the industry can figure out–it ain’t brain surgery.
June 2nd, 2010 at 8:48 am
Fields in Europe and Australia routinely have more than 20 starters with no complaints, even in maiden races. Our American horses can do it too, if trained properly.
June 2nd, 2010 at 9:24 am
Brit makes the most sense here!
Back in 1968 there were only 2 weeks between the Preakness and Belmont and then in 1969, they put three weeks between the Preakness and Belmont and it has stuck ever since. In fact, it was such an adjustment in ‘69 that Arts and Letters had to run in the Met Mile to stay fresh.
What has really changed the game is the need for horses to run very well in March and April to earn their way into the Derby. That’s one thing I’ll agree with Lukas on. What you essentially have is a Qunituptle Crown and by the time most get to the fifth leg, they are spent.
Bring back the bonus, heck, make it $2 million if possible, maybe even making it worth more if a horse finishes in the money in all three for example. I remember when the Belmont wasn’t that attractive in non TC years but you still had horses like Unbridled, Hansel, Pine Bluff, etc picking up a nice bonus check adding some spice to the Belmont.
Pletcher (whom I am a big fan of) represents a new breed of trainer. He has his horses peaking but only off of layoffs. Since he came on the seen he has only raced one horse in all three races, Impeachment in 2000. Point is, the way Pletcher, Zito, Mott, and others train their horses today, it will be nearly impossible for them to string together three wins in five grueling weeks.
If others follow suit, we could be looking at an even longer TC drought. If that happens, so be it. The last thing we need to do is water down the rules so that someone wins the TC every other year. That is a disgrace to the horses and connections of the 11 who have won it before. Not to mention the fans that experienced the drama of the moment.
June 2nd, 2010 at 11:04 am
In looking at the brighter side, there would have been several Triple Crown winners in recent years except for misjudged rides by jockeys with little experience in 1 1/2 mile races at Belmont. Instead of changing the distance to the Belmont S., NYRA should card a number of 1 1/2 mile races the week of the Belmont to allow non-NY based jockeys an opportunity to get a good feel for the track and distance involved. Needless to say, owners and trainers should take advantage of these opportunities if their jockey hasn’t been riding regularly at Belmont.
June 2nd, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Ray,
Have to agree with the vast majority of the comments above. Your response is a disappointment and reflective of the short sighted thinking of the quick fix generation. Leave the series alone and let’s start improving the quality of the horses, breeders, owners and trainers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the spacing or distances of the Triple Crown races. Will agree with your final point that improving the sponsor and bonus structure could be a positive, but other than that, you’ve gone to the dark side on this issue.
June 2nd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
I’m so tired of media types whining about the lack of a Triple Crown. Grow up. The Triple Crown is worth waiting for. I don’t care if it takes another 20 years, I’m willing to wait to see a truly great horse take it instead of watering it down so some boring Super Saver-esque plodder can win.
And even if I never see another Triple Crown, I was blessed to have seen Secretariat’s TWELVE FURLONG Belmont. That was good enough to last a life time.
June 4th, 2010 at 2:22 am
Yes, No, Yes and add nos. 4-Derby field limited to 12 starters & 5-Revise entry eligibility for the Derby.
I don’t see how changing the schedule would make winning the Triple Crown any easier if the Belmont remained at 1 1/2 miles. We could run the 1st Sat. in May, Memorial day weekend and the fourth of July. The Belmont part of the TC is such a challenge because of the different training methods needed to prepare a horse for the Derby and the Preakness. Prepping for the 3rd leg requires a young 3 year old to adapt not only to the physical rigors of training for 12F, but the mental toughness factors as well. The mental and physical strength of a horse competing in 3 consecutive, hard races are the hallmarks of a TC winner.
#4 First, is the safety of the horses and jockeys. The gate should be positioned so that the #1 horse would not run into the rail; the field size dramatically increases the contact between horses. This is a recipe for disaster that racing cannot afford. Second, all the bumping, getting shut off, etc. makes the Derby more a lottery of luck than showcasing the true abilities of these colts.
#5 Although the graded stakes earnings was a better idea for eligibility, the substantial purse increases for those races in the last 60 days prior to the Derby work against any marketing plan designed to promote a fan following of summer, fall and winter, late 2 years and early 3 year olds as potential Ky Derby and TC contenders. This could easily be resolved with the GS earnings being replaced with a GS point system. Additionally, the 2 yr Breeders Cup Champion would automatically be eligible.
A Triple Crown winner in itself will not change racing much, but a 6-9 month period where fans can identify and follow the hype of potential TC contenders will have a substantial impact.
June 4th, 2010 at 3:26 am
#7 dr Overall I’m in agreement with you especially regarding gamblers and owners. For far too many years the industry has shown only a minor interest in the desires of those who pay to put on the show.
As to steroids ruining breeding, that is a common misconception. The lack of durability in breeding stock is probably the most important factor. If you compare TBs to Standardbreds over the last 25 years, in Stds. the improvement in quality of the breed is phenomenal. You simply do not find successful stallions with abbreviated racing careers. Even more glaring is that 25 years ago a top horse would pace in 1:58+-1:59. Currently top horses pace in 1:49 and 1:50; only Nihalator who was the breed equivalent of Secretariat could pace in today’s times. We’re talking almost a 10 second improvement in speed and not just in 1-2 superstars, but groups of horses. Now, when it comes to medication, lets simply say there is plenty.
As to steroids, there is no evidence they make a horse run faster, nor can they make a lame horse run sound. If used properly and judiciously, the positive effects are to stimulate appetite and as an aid in speeding recovery from training and racing which assists in maintaining the overall health of a horse. Idiots abused steroids, just like they do bute and lasix. Ruining horses is easy and legal. All one has to do is under train or over train which acts as a catalyst for a huge number of injuries.