LEXINGTON, Ky. — OK, I’ve changed my mind.
It’s time to tweak the Triple Crown.
That’s not what I said a week go. Asked on a radio show if it was time to move the Triple Crown around, I said no. Just because Kentucky Derby winner Rich Strike was turning his back on the Preakness did not mean we should turn our back on racing history.
Then they ran the Preakness. Saturday’s race was good, not great. Early Voting was a worthy winner. But without a healthy Kentucky Derby winner for the first time since Spend a Buck in 1985 — especially one that captured the public’s heart by winning the “Run for the Roses” as an 80-1 shot — the Preakness was, well, just another race.
The last thing horse racing needs right now is for the second leg of the Triple Crown to be just another race.
“It boggles my mind when smart people refuse to see simple facts,” NBC racing analyst Randy Moss tweeted. “Many of today’s top horses that run well in the Derby skip the Preakness because the 2-week gap. That’s a fact. This is bad for the Triple Crown and thus bad for the sport. Another fact. So fix it.”
Problem: The sport has changed. The breed has changed. Trainers and owners just don’t run their horses off two weeks' rest anymore.
The solution: Move the Preakness to the first Saturday in June, the Belmont the first week in July.
I’m not blaming Rich Strike. His connections did what was in the best interest of the horse, sitting out the Preakness to prepare for the Belmont. And Rich Strike wasn’t the only one to skip the trip to Baltimore, after all. Just three of the 20 colts who ran in the Kentucky Derby also ran in the Preakness. Blue Grass Stakes winner and third-place Derby finisher Zandon stayed home. So did Wood Memorial winner Mo Donegal.
What about tradition? Isn’t the Triple Crown supposed to be difficult? There is a reason only 13 colts have accomplished the grueling task, why we went 37 years between Affirmed in 1978 and American Pharoah in 2015. But I’m not sure it would be any less difficult if the Preakness was run a month after the Derby and the Belmont a month after the Preakness.
The fields would be better, deeper and more recognizable to the general public. You could follow the progress of a talented colt from one race to the next in a series of races, instead of three individual races. Competition, instead of stamina, would be the deciding factor.
What about the argument the public would lose interest if the races were spaced farther apart? That’s a legitimate worry, but I’m not sure it is more concerning than the drop in interest when the Derby winner declines the Preakness, or the Preakness winner declines the Belmont, as Early Voting’s connections have indicated they are likely to do.
True, resisting change for so long is what has held the sport back for so long. With the new Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, led by new CEO Lisa Lazarus, there is a golden opportunity to change the sport, to make it not just safer but more united and easier for the general public to follow and trust. There’s an opportunity for a fresh start. The same opportunity exists for the Triple Crown.
After all, Pimlico is about to undergo a major renovation. The powers that be aren’t spending millions just to see the Kentucky Derby winner stay home. The track’s owner, 1/ST Racing, is reportedly open to the possibility of changing the Preakness date in hopes of drawing more interest from connections who ran in the first leg of the Triple Crown.
NYRA, which runs the Belmont, appears more hesitant. “We have to be very thoughtful about any proposed changes,” NYRA CEO David O’Rourke told the Thoroughbred Daily News.
Thoughtful, yes; resistant, no. When it comes to the Triple Crown, change should be the name of the game.
