PG2023 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gee, I don't know. Maybe based on the data in
> Molesap's post? The Triple Crown ruins the best
> horses in every crop and it leaves you with a
> classic like this year with an under-achiever
> loaded up with drugs staggering home followed by a
> Japanese horse off a 6 month layoff.
>
> The data is VERY clear that the majority of horses
> that run in the triple crown over the last 25
> years rarely make it through their 4yo season if
> they make it at all. There is already a shortage
> of horses. It seems right on brand for this sport
> to keep an ancient schedule that ruins their best
> bred athletes. No one I know that isn't a horse
> racing fan, and most casual racing fans as well,
> ever cares about the preakness and the Belmont
> only matters if there is a potential triple crown.



The Preakness and Belmont get more coverage than the average big stakes race, much more. How often do the others show up on ESPN, or a morning talk show? Hardly ever. And I get asked about the Preakness and Belmont all the time. Never had a casual fan ask me about the Woodward.

What's the data on all of the horses that have raced in the triple crown vs the pool as a whole? We saw some ugly stuff this summer that had nothing to do with the triple crown.

Also keep in mind triple crown type horses, especially the winners, are more likely to have stud value than the average horse, and thus retired earlier.

Anyway, I'd love to see the data. Always willing to change the view.