"Rules," "requirements" - that's completely missing the point. "Gaming the system" is exactly the game of using the circumstances for the purpose of gaining advantage within the confinement of rules and requirements. In this case, it's the very short period of time for the horse to recover after two grueling races, to compete in a race that already tests the stamina of the horse.
In other words, taking advantage of what in human terms is often called a "schedule conflict."
Who said they couldn't or wouldn't, given enough time to recover from Preakness? Not to mention that your prescription of spending [more] time training the horse at Belmont would cost significant amount of money for owners (especially the ones farther from North East) and would make it even more difficult to develop a TC winner for someone of more modest means - which is the case with Dumbass Partners - and would make it even easier for more "local" or very wealthy / corporate owners. Is that really a desirable outcome?
All I heard during pre-race commentary was not the relative strengths and weaknesses of the horses but only that Wicked Strong was the favorite because it didn't compete in the Preakness and was "fresher," and that 4 out of last 5 races was won by a horse that didn't compete in either Derby or Preakness.
Where is the fairness in that? I keep seeing the comments that all things and conditions in the race were "equal" when they clearly weren't equal - some owners chose for their horses to be unencumbered by prior races because they clearly understood the great advantages (and lower expenses) of fresh legs. In other words, horses who currently compete in Preakness are naturally disadvantaged compared with those that don't.
Moving Belmont a few weeks out would, if not level the playing field, significantly minimize the disadvantage and [probably] put a stop to much of this kind of nonsense.
I think that's what Steve Coburn's point was about, though I disagree with his prescription to remedy the situation, as it is artificial and might put the undue burden on other owners and horses. But what is so "controversial" and what would be the disadvantage of extending the time between races a few weeks?
I think you missed the point again, even though you recognized that the adjustment had to be made by the NBA in response to changing conditions and circumstances of the game.
The NBA moved the basket higher because 7-footers had the "unfair" advantage over 6-footers with the low-hanging "fruit"... er, basket. The point was not to make the GAME harder but to make it harder FOR the 7-footers to realize their relative height advantages over 6+ foot "shorties" (i.e., "you can't teach height") - the correlation in horse racing would be to reduce / minimize the relative advantage of "fresh vs tired" - something that horses have no control over. So then, "Putting more time between the races would make it..." more of a level-playing field, minimizing the affects of now "naturally"-occuring disadvantage of "conflict schedule."
What's more, the basket height change was somewhat disruptive for all the players - everybody, including the "shorties," had to adjust to new height. Moving Belmont to the end of June wouldn't be at all disruptive, it wouldn't otherwise change an iota or rules and requirements by Belmont, not one yard less for horses to run and not a thing for any horse or any owner, unless there is some big "schedule conflict" I am not aware of, or unless climate change makes end of June less palatable for racing than the beginning of June.
-------
Exactly. He also photo-finished with the near-consensus favorite of the experts, which had the advantage of skipping Preakness. It was so clear that CC was just too tired to pull off a win, that conclusion as to why was obvious, but that doesn't make him any lesser horse.
Yeah, I understand why some people throw the usual "sore loser" jabs at Coburn, but the man made a great point in addressing the basic unfairness issue out in the open, even if it flew right through their ears. Particularly for neophytes like me who could not possibly know that the conditions were not really "equal" until pre-race commentators started talking about "fresh legs" and "skipping Preakness" and gave stats about the last 5 races winners.
My immediate comment was: "So, the owners are 'cheating' to be spoilers because they don't think their horses have what it takes to be real winners" - maybe harsh, but really just stating the fact.
"Same" amount of time isn't necessary and it doesn't change anything if it's not long enough for horses to recover. Length of the time to recover between races matters, having them exactly the "same" doesn't.
Absolutely right. I love horses but I am not a [horse / dog] racing aficionado. The reason I was watching this Belmont was due to great company of people and dogs accompanied by good food and near-festive atmosphere. None were participating, interested in or talked about betting, though many are very bright people with an exceptionally good understanding of probability and game theories.
If I know that during next Belmont the "talk of the town" is going to be "fresh horse vs tired horse" - that kind of event may not happen or we could find some other reason to gather.
The reason these races are even remotely special for many not generally interest in "sport" is because of Triple Crown, not a single event, i.e., they are linked by organizers to generate hype and interest among "commoners" - if people realize that the TC game as it exists now is rigged against a potential TC winner, there goes the hype and a lot of money along with it. Steve Coburn has done a great service for the horses and business, even if some (including "snarky" Bob Costas) can't see past last hour to appreciate that.
Part of the problem with this is people believe CC’s owner when he said the horses CC went up against were “fresh”. They weren’t. The horses that finished 1 and 2 yesterday also finished 1 and 2 in the Peter Pan, which happens the week before the Preakness also at Belmont. So they at best had one more week of rest, but had raced a longer race.
It’s not spend more time training at Belmont it’s spend ANY time RACING at Belmont. That’s the key to winning the Crown have a horse that can win at Belmont. A horse owner that wants the Crown should follow a simple rule: run them early at Belmont, if they win follow the path necessary to qualify for the Derby, if they don’t better luck next year because they WON’T win the Crown. If that prescription makes it easier for some owners to win the Crown then why hasn’t anybody? The fact is owners really aren’t going for the Crown anymore. Owners put their horses in the Derby because it’s prestigious and fun, then one of them wins, so then the (usually) run that horse in the Preakness and maybe they win, and then everybody forgets the lessons of history and thinks that horse has a chance in the Belmont even though he’s never raced there, and he loses, often to a horse that has a successful history at the Belmont, then people whine and say the system needs to change. The only part of the system that needs to change is owners actually trying to win the Crown from the start, rather than on a lark because they happened to win the Derby.
Moving the Belmont out wouldn’t level the playing field. It would just mean there’d be a couple more weeks of hype before our Crown “contender” whose never raced at Belmont before lost to a horse that probably had. If this Belmont was 2 weeks from now then CC still faces the same competition, competition that’s still had one more week of rest, competition that had already come in 1 and 2 at that track, and loses to them because they can race at Belmont and CC can’t.
The NBA didn’t move the hoops up because 7 footers had an advantage over 6 footers. They moved the hoops up because they were getting so many players so much taller than 6 feet. Their population of players had made the old hoop height no longer a challenge, so they increased it. Same reason the NFL moved the goal posts back (and needs to make another adjustment), kickers had gotten too good, so they made it harder.
The TC clearly doesn’t need an adjustment. It CAN be won with the races organized exactly the way they are, it HAS been. What needs to change is the owners, they need to prep their horses for this challenge before going to the Derby rather than entering the Derby and seeing what happens.
Nail on the head, nail...on...the...head.
Just to add for the benefit of others - If these are “completely separate” races, then there should be no official “Triple Crown” title. Since there is, as in every other sport, competition should be structured to support running in all three races that comprise the sequence. The equivalent would be allowing a runner to sit-out until the final race after other runners have done qualifying races. It seems odd to me that horse racing is the only sport to allow this.
The bottom line is Chrome was not a TC-worthy horse. There’s no shame in that, there’s only been 11. But if you water it down by requiring horses to race in the other two TC events, it won’t mean anything.