They will be fresh and rested.
It's not as if those horses deserved a bye in the first 2 legs of the TC.
The owners simply chose to sit there horses out in an effort to play spoiler in the Belmont.
Yes, it's a new strategy in recent years. To purposely sit out one or both of the first two legs of the TC to focus on taking the Belmont. It's one of the main reasons it's especially hard to win the TC today.
There of course hasn’t been a TC winner since Affirmed in 1978. Before that, Seattle Slew in ‘77, and the great Secretariat in ‘73. What a decade for racing! Not to leave out the sensational filly Ruffian, and incredible gelding Forego!
When I was a teen in the 70s I worked in the stables at Belmont, and was lucky enough to be around many of the superstar horses, jockeys and trainers of the time. Got to see Ruffian pass by our barn every morning on her way to work out. Went to Frank Whitely’s barn one day to ask to see her up close. After “interrogating” me for a few minutes, he took me to see her. I learned later that he had a great sense of humor and liked to fool around like that.
Not spoiler. Profit. They don’t really care about the TC, they care about making money. They aren’t interested in the glitz and glam like the owners that have taken over the Derby. Their horses are investments, they race them in a way to maximize profits, which means avoiding the idiocy that has become the Derby and go ahead and race at Belmont because it’s a big money race in their own area. It’s the difference between the part of the country where horse racing is a hobby and where it’s a business. The hobbyists have taken over the Derby and Preakness, the business men still run Belmont.
“The owners simply chose to sit there horses out in an effort to play spoiler in the Belmont. “
A horse that finishes in the top 3 in any race is guaranteed their ROI in stud fees.
If my horse was built for distance, why waste time and money running him and tiring him out for the payday at the Belmont?