When something happens time after time and you ignore the obvious reasons and look for others, it is often a reach. The obvious answer to why no triple crown winners in the last 30 years is the 3 races in 5 weeks is too hard on a breed that is increasingly being bred speed over speed and ignoring durability and stamina in the popular sires. Also, as more owners and trainers preach spacing throughout a horse's career, the 3 races in 5 weeks becomes even a taller order.

That said, I went back and took at the last 10 horses to be trying the Belmont after having gotten the first two legs and there are "other" reasons for a lot of them. (sorry, I only went back to the last 10 because I am in my 40's and not old enough to do justice to the late 70's and early 80's attempts of Spectacular Bid and Pleasant Colony.

Note to TGJB, mixing "figures" with OTHER racing/handicapping aspects in this look back:

Alysheba - had to go off Lasix in the Belmont and lost to a horse that was about as good as he was. Bet Twice beat him again in the Haskell, and while Alysheba did get the better of Bet Twice a majority of the time, Bet Twice was almost as good. This, combined with the Lasix angle make me put not want to put this in the "3 races in 5 weeks grind" category - especially when Bet Twice ran just as hard in the Derby and Preakness.

Sunday Silence - I am a rare East Coast guy who things Sunday Silence was the better horse, but mostly because of his agility and push button acceleration. Those are not as relevant on Big Sandy. Not a surprise at all that Easy Goer would beat Sunday Silence on his home track, with a structure that favored his style of running. (sort of like no surprise Sunday silence would beat Easy Goer on a glib Gulfstream track in the Breeder's Cup). Another I don't put in the "3 races in 5 weeks grind" category.

Silver Charm - A tougher call. Although again, based on the race Touch Gold ran in the Preakness, these two are horses that were about the same calibre. Touch Gold got a hall of fame ride by McCarron. Leaving for position early, got covered up. and then came real wide in the stretch, almost out of Silver charm's vision, who was a noted fighter, who was having his usual donnybrook with Free House down on the inside. Again, I lean to not calling this "3 races in 5 weeks" grind as a decisive factor.

Real Quiet - Another I don't put in that category. I think Victory Gallop ran a better number than Real Quiet in the Derby, and they again ran 1-2 in the Preakness. then in the Belmont, you MAYBE had Kent move a bit early on Real Quiet, which ONLY MATTERED because Gary Stevens gave a ridiculously good ride on Victory Gallop. But again, I wouldn't call this a "3 races in 5 weeks grind" issue.

Charismatic - maybe. Never thought this horse was good before the Derby. Got good at the right time. Won the 1st two legs and then ran a gallant race in the belmont, perhaps with an overly aggressive ride by Chris Antley, hooking the filly early. Perhaps the 3rd race in 5 weeks got this horse. although I am inclined to think he just wasn't that good. (could be me being stubborn)

War Emblem - Would probably put this one in the category of the grind getting to a horse. I know he stumbled, but doesn't it just seem that horses sitting on "bounces" stumble so much more than others? (maybe my imagination). Hard to argue that he didn't wear down though. An awful race. And this poster's worst memory of a Belmont. Was a stubborn Medaglia D'Oro fan who bet him in the Derby and Preakness and didn't get off him in the Belmont where he was something like 17-1. Lives for stacks. Still can't believe it was Sarava that beat me

Funny Cide - Definitely not putting this one in the "grind category". Empire Maker was a better horse, foot issue derby day, recovered for the Belmont and was just plain better.

Smarty Jones - figures will say the grind got to this horse. I will say race dynamics. Stevens on Rock Hard Ten and Bailey on Eddington, taking turns going after him. Perhaps, some can argue that if it hadn't been his 3rd race in 5 weeks, he would have won anyway. I think he was ganged up on.

Big Brown - A complete mystery to me. Dehydrated, couldn't sweat, on steriods, foot problems, etc.etc. I guess you can call it the grind of the 3 races in 5 weeks. Or not.

California Chrome - another tough one, although he certainly ran an "off" race in the Belmont. Espinoza had him on the inside, where the horse hates to be and he got a bit injured early, but hard to argue that he didn't run his race.

Those are just the last 10. I would argue that 6 of these horses lost to horses that were as good or better than they were, which had nothing to do with hoping for the Derby/Preakness winner to regress big time. 1 to "race dynamics". That leaves Big Brown, Charismatic and War Emblem as victims of the schedule and wear and tear. (even of those 3, not sure War Emblem was better than Medalgia D'Oro who ran 2nd and not sure Charismatic was better than 1 or 2 in his field).

What it tells me is that I can't play a horse like "D'tara to win just hoping blindly for a regression. that can happen, but it happened once before, maybe twice. I need to look for a fast horse and play logically against AP, if at all.

Rob