Hey Rip Van Winkle-- while you were sleeping they DID move the goalposts, to the back of the endzone. Think players are safer because of that move? And if players ever start hitting their heads on the rim they should look at raising it.
The point is not to make the TC easier. The point is to keep horses around longer. The issue you bring up-- whether they run well on short rest-- is the wrong question. Bill Finley did that too in a piece he wrote-- he pointed out Onion beat Secretariat on a week\'s rest. He failed to mention Onion couldn\'t get back to the starting gate for something like 15 months after that. Same issue with CC winning the Belmont 5 days after winning the Met-- how many more starts did he make? The question is not whether horses run well on short rest-- it\'s what toll it takes.
As for \"voodoo\"-- you seem to be saying that if there is not 100% provable cause and effect correlation something is not a factor. Do you apply that thinking to other handicapping factors? Does pace analysis,betting the fastest horse, or pedigree give you 100% winners? It\'s all a question of percentages. A lefty homering off a lefty doesn\'t mean you aren\'t better off in the long run making him hit against lefties.
By memory, I\'ve said 4 times that a horse\'s campaign was putting him at risk. Those were Barbaro before the Preakness, Go For Wand before the BC, Eight Belles before the Derby, and Rachel before the Preakness. I did not necessarily think they would break down in the race, although 3 of them did-- I thought running would do them some damage. I was wrong about Rachel. But that is an unbelievable record-- as I said to you last time we had this conversation, you go pick out 4 horses off form, without knowing anything about them, and predict they will make no more than one start in the next 6 months. Let\'s see if you\'re right 3 times.
I also wrote this before the 2008 Belmont about Big Brown: \"Big efforts take their toll, and when you\'re also dealing with a horse with a history of soundness problems, the effects are magnified. Big Brown\'s recent foot problems can be seen as a symptom, and the missed training doesn\'t help his cause. Now he\'ll be making his third start in five weeks, while dealing with the effects of two big efforts, three if you count the Florida Derby. There is a reason ten horses in a row have lost when in this position-- the Triple Crown is a tremendous amount of stress to place on a young horse in a short time frame. Big Brown is the best horse here, but he is likely to regress further, and that would bring him back to several other horses\". In case you slept through that one too, BB was eased.
Am I predicting IHA will be eased or break down? No, especially since his connections were smart enough to give him extra time this spring-- but I think it\'s more likely than with most horses, and I am saying there is a strong chance that he will pay a price for running in this race. Not necessarily immediately-- I think there\'s a good chance he\'ll put in an effort maybe 3 points off his top on his way out the door. Someone out there should make a list of all the horses that started in all 3 TC legs, and another of those that ran in the Belmont but not BOTH the previous two, and see how they compare in terms of number of starts for the rest of their career. You can start with Smarty, Prarie Bayou, Monarchos, Pine Bluff, Point Given, Charismatic...
Yes, there\'s also Funny Cide, Skip Away, and Silver Charm. But I\'ll bet you the first group averages WAY less starts going forward. The game needs these horses to stick around, and we\'re eating our young.
