Is this really a good thing?

[dean smith]

As it turns out, it looks like Mine That Bird is legit and the best (non-Rachel Alexandra) 3-year-old in the country at this time. Yes, everyone loves Rachel Alexandra, but is her ruining MTB's Triple Crown chances really good for the sport?

Look, he probably wasn't going to win it anyway (I'm convinced it's a near-impossibility for whatever reasons after watching War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones and Big Brown fail the past few years), but at least it would keep the casual sports fan interested for another three weeks. Now, instead of three solid weeks of horse racing and Triple Crown talk on ESPN (they who tell them what to watch, who to root for, and what is relevent in sports), we might get a few "nice little stories" about silly nonsense like "girls can beat boys" a few days leading up to the Belmont.

For a sport struggling to stay relevent that really only enjoys about six weeks in the spotlight out of the year IF there's a Triple Crown chase, Rachel Alexandra just chopped that time in half.

I've been trying to get my NFL/NBA/MLB obsessed idiot friends half as interested in the sport as I am for years and I've discovered that after the Belmont, the game's momentum comes to a screeching halt. One of them actually sent me an email saying "better luck next year, cuz NOBODY cares about the Belmont now."

I don't know who to blame, RA's previous owners and their incredibly foolish and stubborn refusal to race a filly against colts in the Derby, or the sport itself for not doing everything in its power to make sure there's a Triple Crown chance each year. If that means freezing out a threat in the Preakness or even an outright, good ol' fashioned race fixin', I'm on board!

(I don't know if I even mean what I wrote with that last paragraph, I just got on a roll.)

[Danzig]

you're kidding, right? this is a joke?

[dean smith]

No. I'm not. This isn't a joke. It may be great for all of us who love the sport, but as far as growing the fanbase of the sport, I think anytime you don't have the Triple Crown run, it is a terrible thing. Whether this is right or wrong, it's a reality.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dean smith

No. I'm not. This isn't a joke. It may be great for all of us who love the sport, but as far as growing the fanbase of the sport, I think anytime you don't have the Triple Crown run, it is a terrible thing. Whether this is right or wrong, it's a reality.

i think it's wrong, and far from reality.


we haven't had a tc winner since affirmed. if you talk to some writers, they think the non tc winner is a good thing. look at it this way, had MTB won the tc (lol yeah, right) there would be next to no drama next year because people wouldn't expect it to happen again next year, and the draw would be down dramatically. not having a tc winner gives a lot of folks a reason to tune in to see if it will finally happen.
besides, what good would it have to have your idiot friends (as you called them) interested in a sport that they think ends with the belmont? i'd imagine if nyra can get both mtb and rachel to come, the excitement of 'round two' would be tremendous.

and i have to question just how serious you are when you think they should freeze horses out or fix the race for a favorable outcome. i'd love to see a tc winner as bad as anyone, but i was cheering for rachel yesterday. it was a great race, and a great performance from the filly. people have been talking about the demise of racing for years...yet here it remains.

[herkhorse]

Originally Posted by dean smith

No. I'm not. This isn't a joke. It may be great for all of us who love the sport, but as far as growing the fanbase of the sport, I think anytime you don't have the Triple Crown run, it is a terrible thing. Whether this is right or wrong, it's a reality.

Wrong. My phone is ringing off the hook this morning from non race fans telling me what a great race that was. Yesterday was a great day for horse racing, lets enjoy it.

[King Glorious]

They could put in an earnings rule for the Preakness and Belmont. Something like "preference given to horses with $0 earned in any race. Second preference given to maiden winners only. Any winners of races other than maiden or maiden claiming races, not eligible." Something like that would be perfect.

Look, you don't want to give it away. You want to make them earn it. Affirmed had to beat Alydar three times. Sunday Silence would have had to beat Easy Goer three times. Alysheba over Bet Twice three times. I think ideally, you'd want to believe that at some point in the three races, a TC winner would have had to beat the best challenger out there. He didn't get that chance in the Derby.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

They could put in an earnings rule for the Preakness and Belmont. Something like "preference given to horses with $0 earned in any race. Second preference given to maiden winners only. Any winners of races other than maiden or maiden claiming races, not eligible." Something like that would be perfect.

Look, you don't want to give it away. You want to make them earn it. Affirmed had to beat Alydar three times. Sunday Silence would have had to beat Easy Goer three times. Alysheba over Bet Twice three times. I think ideally, you'd want to believe that at some point in the three races, a TC winner would have had to beat the best challenger out there. He didn't get that chance in the Derby.

exactly. keeping good horses out to guarantee a win would be more detrimental. it would be a hollow victory and the 'winner' would be a paper tiger. people aren't dumb-they'd know what they had seen was a fraud. that would be worse than the type of stuff we had yesterday. the preakness had more buzz than i've seen in years, since in years' past so many skipped the second race to freshen for the belmont. having rachel will create buzz for the race in three weeks. will she or won't she? will the derby winner show up to try again? it's great stuff.

[dean smith]

OK. Fair enough. I may have gone too far. I see your point about the drama of the TC drought. But if it's over with the Preakness...

This is what my buddy sent me this morning:

Mine That Bird needed an extra 1/8th to get past Calvin Borel - guess you'll have to wait to win em over next year Brav, cuz who cares about the Belmont now

And this guy is a semi-horse racing fan! That is, he gets interested for about six weeks out of the year.

And maybe that's what's really distressing me.

[Danzig]

perhaps you should explain to him that races are just as good, as exciting, when two good ones face off with just one trophy on the line. or even when it's just a 10k purse...

[dean smith]

You're thoughts are just what I needed to hear. Thank you for slapping me back to reality. I'm changing my avatar to honor you and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dean smith

You're thoughts are just what I needed to hear. Thank you for slapping me back to reality. I'm changing my avatar to honor you and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

who's that? certainly not the danzig i met in ky a few years ago!!

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by dean smith

OK. Fair enough. I may have gone too far. I see your point about the drama of the TC drought. But if it's over with the Preakness...

This is what my buddy sent me this morning:

Mine That Bird needed an extra 1/8th to get past Calvin Borel - guess you'll have to wait to win em over next year Brav, cuz who cares about the Belmont now

And this guy is a semi-horse racing fan! That is, he gets interested for about six weeks out of the year.

And maybe that's what's really distressing me.

Bring your friends to the track. Teach them how to bet and have them make a $2 bet and sit back. They'll be fans before you know it.

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by dean smith

OK. Fair enough. I may have gone too far. I see your point about the drama of the TC drought. But if it's over with the Preakness...

This is what my buddy sent me this morning:

Mine That Bird needed an extra 1/8th to get past Calvin Borel - guess you'll have to wait to win em over next year Brav, cuz who cares about the Belmont now

And this guy is a semi-horse racing fan! That is, he gets interested for about six weeks out of the year.

And maybe that's what's really distressing me.

You should explain to your friends how some racetracks have slots parlors and table games available and they could go play those while you waste your time throwing your money away on horse racing

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Anytime the best horses race against each other......it's a good thing. Everyone speculated what Rachel Alexandra could have done in the Derby, and thanks to Jess Jackson we got to see how good she really is. Nowadays connections duck running each other all year long and it's why we have paper champions.

I understand the sentiment of the original post. But, I also agree with the folks who say a triple crown will not be the saving grace for the sport that some think. While Rachel Alexandra's win yesterday eliminated a possible huge story going forward in 3 weeks at Belmont, it also created a huge story in it's own right. We got the 2 best (non injured) 3 year olds together, battling it out on the track. And they both ran big and it was a fantastic race. What more as fans....and bettors could we ask for?

People were interested in the Preakness going in and just as interested after the race. I also had non-racing fan friends calling me all week asking about the race. They had seen Borel on Leno, and heard about the jockey switches on ESPN, etc. After the race the calls came in also. People were excited about the race, and they wanted to talk about it. Somehow as a sport we need to try and capture what we saw yesterday and have it happen more often if this sport is going to move back into people's hearts. I don't know how we can do it, but keeping horse racing in the media will certainly help. And the way to keep it in the media is having the best horses racing against each other, which is what we had yesterday. Sorry for the novel.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Anytime the best horses race against each other......it's a good thing. Everyone speculated what Rachel Alexandra could have done in the Derby, and thanks to Jess Jackson we got to see how good she really is. Nowadays connections duck running each other all year long and it's why we have paper champions.

I understand the sentiment of the original post. But, I also agree with the folks who say a triple crown will not be the saving grace for the sport that some think. While Rachel Alexandra's win yesterday eliminated a possible huge story going forward in 3 weeks at Belmont, it also created a huge story in it's own right. We got the 2 best (non injured) 3 year olds together, battling it out on the track. And they both ran big and it was a fantastic race. What more as fans....and bettors could we ask for?

People were interested in the Preakness going in and just as interested after the race. I also had non-racing fan friends calling me all week asking about the race. They had seen Borel on Leno, and heard about the jockey switches on ESPN, etc. After the race the calls came in also. People were excited about the race, and they wanted to talk about it. Somehow as a sport we need to try and capture what we saw yesterday and have it happen more often if this sport is going to move back into people's hearts. I don't know how we can do it, but keeping horse racing in the media will certainly help. And the way to keep it in the media is having the best horses racing against each other, which is what we had yesterday. Sorry for the novel.

Nice job Jay, agree 100%

[Riot]

I think we can't underestimate what NBC has done this year regarding visibility. NBC loves and supports racing, and does it better than ESPN ever has. And made a special point this year of proving it, I think.

NBC did tons of commercials on this, starting a good month before the Derby. On Friday, NBC had a constantly-replaying commercial for the Preakness using an obviously little girl's voice (because it's a family thing, kids can watch the horses race and should ask their parents to turn it on).

Borel on Leno was an NBC ad, too (the discussion too carefully crafted to avoid controversy and emphasize the "feel good" aspect).

Look - I've never played golf. But I'm a huge casual golf fan. Read the golf mags, watch on TV every chance I can. Because the commercial bites tell me, "Phil vs Tiger this weekend" - and I want to see that. They give me the superficial knowledge I need to enjoy watching.

As long as we can give the casual non-fan a "Twitter-equivalent" soundbite they can latch on to so they feel halfway knowledgable discussing horse racing ("Filly vs Colt", etc) - they will watch - especially when it's on a major channel and they know it's coming up.

[Suffolk Shippers]

Originally Posted by dean smith

As it turns out, it looks like Mine That Bird is legit and the best (non-Rachel Alexandra) 3-year-old in the country at this time. Yes, everyone loves Rachel Alexandra, but is her ruining MTB's Triple Crown chances really good for the sport?

Look, he probably wasn't going to win it anyway (I'm convinced it's a near-impossibility for whatever reasons after watching War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones and Big Brown fail the past few years), but at least it would keep the casual sports fan interested for another three weeks. Now, instead of three solid weeks of horse racing and Triple Crown talk on ESPN (they who tell them what to watch, who to root for, and what is relevent in sports), we might get a few "nice little stories" about silly nonsense like "girls can beat boys" a few days leading up to the Belmont.

For a sport struggling to stay relevent that really only enjoys about six weeks in the spotlight out of the year IF there's a Triple Crown chase, Rachel Alexandra just chopped that time in half.

I've been trying to get my NFL/NBA/MLB obsessed idiot friends half as interested in the sport as I am for years and I've discovered that after the Belmont, the game's momentum comes to a screeching halt. One of them actually sent me an email saying "better luck next year, cuz NOBODY cares about the Belmont now."

I don't know who to blame, RA's previous owners and their incredibly foolish and stubborn refusal to race a filly against colts in the Derby, or the sport itself for not doing everything in its power to make sure there's a Triple Crown chance each year. If that means freezing out a threat in the Preakness or even an outright, good ol' fashioned race fixin', I'm on board!

(I don't know if I even mean what I wrote with that last paragraph, I just got on a roll.)

I understand your premise here, I do...but you're wrong in this case. The game does not need a Triple Crown winner to be it's savior. I think that needs to be put out there. In 9 out of 10 cases, if a TC winner did happen, we'd never see him again, ushered off to the shed.

IT IS GOOD FOR THE GAME WHEN THE BEST HORSES KEEP GOING TO POST.

For years, people have been clamoring for someone to actually leave their best horses in training. Someone to not duck a big race to overly coddle the horse. Over the last year, Jess Jackson, as detestable as he may be to some, left the best horse to train as a four yr old, long after his three yr old rivals, Street Sense and Hard Spun had gone home to retirement. Then, he boldy purchased Rachel Alexandra, and put her in the Preakness.

I'd rather someone like that any day of the week over a TC winner. Someone who keeps the best horses out on the track. A guy like Chip Woolley is great for the game. Ford F450 driving, broken legged cowboy, dragging his tough as nails gelding around the country in a van. He might not win a TC, but Mine That Bird is an amazing story, and a great horse. His story is not diminished because he didn't win the TC.

So, like I said, I understand your premise. I think everyone would like to see a Triple Crown winner. But, it's best for everyone that the best horses go to the post in every big race. Jess Jackson should be commended for his bold actions. Not to mention there is no guarantee the race unfolds the way it did w/out Rachel Alexandra.

[dean smith]

Originally Posted by Suffolk Shippers

I understand your premise here, I do...but you're wrong in this case. The game does not need a Triple Crown winner to be it's savior. I think that needs to be put out there. In 9 out of 10 cases, if a TC winner did happen, we'd never see him again, ushered off to the shed.

IT IS GOOD FOR THE GAME WHEN THE BEST HORSES KEEP GOING TO POST.

For years, people have been clamoring for someone to actually leave their best horses in training. Someone to not duck a big race to overly coddle the horse. Over the last year, Jess Jackson, as detestable as he may be to some, left the best horse to train as a four yr old, long after his three yr old rivals, Street Sense and Hard Spun had gone home to retirement. Then, he boldy purchased Rachel Alexandra, and put her in the Preakness.

I'd rather someone like that any day of the week over a TC winner. Someone who keeps the best horses out on the track. A guy like Chip Woolley is great for the game. Ford F450 driving, broken legged cowboy, dragging his tough as nails gelding around the country in a van. He might not win a TC, but Mine That Bird is an amazing story, and a great horse. His story is not diminished because he didn't win the TC.

So, like I said, I understand your premise. I think everyone would like to see a Triple Crown winner. But, it's best for everyone that the best horses go to the post in every big race. Jess Jackson should be commended for his bold actions. Not to mention there is no guarantee the race unfolds the way it did w/out Rachel Alexandra.

OK. Now we're talking. I think everyone agrees that it's kind of discouraging to see the best horses rushed off to the breeding shed after their 3-year-old season.

So, my next question -- and keep in mind this is coming from a relatively new horse racing junkie -- is this: Why isn't a rule just made that horses cannot breed until they're 5-years-old, thus ensuring that the best either race through their fourth year or have to sit a year out? It would kind of be like the NBA's rule against going straight from high school to the pros. Both rules would be promoting better competition. There might be a shortage of mares the first few years of this rule, so maybe some kind of set of exemptions could be made, but aside from that, tell me how this would be a bad thing.

(Bracing myself for another go 'round of public scolding.)

[dean smith]

And by the way, I never said that we needed a TC winner "to save the game" or be its "savior." This is coming from you guys, who have obviously heard it time and again. I'm simply talking about the mainstream interest in the sport that increases ten-fold when the hunt for a Triple Crown is on.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dean smith

And by the way, I never said that we needed a TC winner "to save the game" or be its "savior." This is coming from you guys, who have obviously heard it time and again. I'm simply talking about the mainstream interest in the sport that increases ten-fold when the hunt for a Triple Crown is on.

Northern Dancer was the first race I watched on TV. I saw Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Affirmed/Alydar (on TV)

The Triple Crown didn't seem to interest casual non-fans until right before the last race. Just that last week or so.

People - the casual sorta fans - remember D. Wayne vs. Baffert, they loved Mrs. Gentner being hugged by Carl, they loved Afleet Alex and the Lemonade Stand, every girl with a jumping pony had a crush on Michael Matz when he first became an Olympic caliber rider - you don't need a Triple Crown.

You need something they can root for or against, that's all. They just need a little superficial knowledge readily available so they can latch onto the big public horseracing events with an opinion and an interest.

Getting them, then, to the racetrack is another thing, as they are lost there. The environment is different without a talking head telling them the story. That's where we come in, taking friends to the track.