Last Saturdaky, Journalism won the Preakness Stakes. Almost immediately, racing touts wondered whether he and Sovereignty, the Kentucky Derby winner, would have a rematch in the Belmont Stakes, the last leg of thoroughbred racing’s Triple Crown. In prior years, this wasn’t an issue. The Derby winner and its runnerup would face each other again in the Preakness. And barring injury, they’d square off again for the deciding race in the Belmont.
However, that didn’t happen this year. As NBC Sports Steve Kornacki pointed out, Derby winners haven’t raced in the Preakness in three of the past five years. This recent development reflects the Preakness’ decline in importance in particular and the Triple Crown in general.
The question is: why?
Triple Crown: Pro Forma Reasons
Currently, the most popular reason is the Preakness is scheduled two weeks after the Derby. Judged by current training practices, that timing is too close to the Derby for competing horses to run to their best ability. For that reason many trainers of Derby winners and losers alike skip the Preakness and run their charges, if at all, in the Belmont, five weeks later.
The standard claim is that participating in three high-level stakes races within five weeks time is too grueling a schedule. Most race horses don’t run on in such a demanding schedule any more. For example, when Flightline won Horse of the Year honors in 2022, he raced only three times. All three were scheduled two-three months apart. After winning the last one, the Breeders’ Cup Classic, he was retired undefeated. His entire racing output consisted of six races, four of them stakes.
If Flightline could win Horse of the Year by winning just three races, why risk the possibility of injury by racing more often? Granted, he won all three by impressive margins and against the best competition, but should his example set the standard for every other thoroughbred?
Triple Crown: Injury Prevention Argument
Injuries are a concern at any time, particularly life-threatening ones. Indeed, famous horses like Justify (last Triple Crown winner) and Ruffian, champion mare, had their racing careers cut short or died from racing injuries. Trainers, owners, and track managers heeded the public outcry over injuries suffered by horses racing at all levels of competition. Tracks were resurfaced, restrictions placed on jockey tactics, and drug enforcement policies strengthened and enforced.
In light of that, racing horses fewer times seems a step in that same protective/preventative direction. Such measures, however, don’t seem to help. Justify (6 starts–all wins) and Ruffian (11 starts–10 wins) both broke down after a reduced number of starts. They may be extreme examples, but the brevity of their racing careers indicates reducing a horse’s number of starts is not preventative. It does not prevent them from suffering career- or even life-ending injury.
If preventing injury doesn’t address the issue, the answer must lie elsewhere.
Triple Crown: Look at the Literature
The treatament of horses in thoroughbred racing long has been subsumed under the rubric of animal welfare in this country. Anna Sewell wrote her 1877 novel Black Beauty in part to champion animal (and human) rights. As the major means of conveyance in the 19th century, the maltreatment of horses was a common sight.
As was the racing of horses. Exterminator and Stymie, to name two examples, raced well over 200 times between them in the first half of the 20th century. Purses were smaller then, and a horse needed to race more times to stay in oats and pay its entry fees. One might argue these two were geldings and would produce no further income once their racing days ended. However, even Secretariat, Triple Crown winner during the third quarter of the 20th century, raced over twenty times before retiring to stud.
The theme of a beloved horse being sacrificed to satisfy human obligations is a powerful one in 20th-century literature. In a previous blog post, Five Books that Transformed My Life, Walter Farley‘s Black Stallion series ranks number five. One title in particular stimulated my interest in horses and thoroughbred racing: The Black Stallion’s Courage. Predicated on the premise of a retired athlete returning to his sport to rescue the family business, this book produced my lifelong fascination with horse-racing lore and traditions.
Horse Racing and Sportsmanship
At this point, you might be asking yourself: so what?
The book provided pre-adolescent me with an insight as to why people love their equine friends so much. And it exposed me to the traditions and procedures that constitute thoroughbred racing in America. Some regional biases, too. The Metropolitan, Suburban, and Brooklyn Handicaps make up the handicapped horses triple crown in New York racing. At the time of the story’s publication (1956), they traditionally ran on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and the last day of the Belmont spring meet. No horse The Black’s age (7) ever came out of retirement, carried the crushing weight assigned, and won.
Classic plot tropes, all of them. Yet they emblematize the lore that fascinates fans much as winning the batting triple crown does in baseball. It’s the small horse owner pitted against the giant stable, a champion fighting overwhelming odds, David and Goliath.
The Connection
Fine, but–
The connection between fiction and real life occurs when Alec Ramsey, The Black’s owner and jockey, reins in his horse rather than winning the race to rescue from serious injury a jockey riding beside them struggling to regain his seat. Alec’s humanity and sportsmanship overcomes the financial pressure to win and restore his small, fire-ravaged stable. That fictional depiction reveals the best aspects of the sport in real life and keeps it alive.
Triple Crown: At the Wire
Horse racing in the 19th century was termed “the sport of kings.” And it still is. It costs money to feed and run a horse. The temptation to retire a male horse to stud at the first instance of success is always there. So are the pitfalls if an owner waits too long. The men who owned race horses two centuries ago were wealthy men, yes. But their wealth granted them the luxury of being sportsmen, too. As such, they thrilled at the competition of evenly matched steeds struggling mightily for the lead.
Unfortunately, perhaps, race horses primarily became investments in the 21st century rather than projections of male competiveness. When then President Reagan initiated the economic shift to the wealthier classes, one of the first things this group did was investing in horse farms rather than building factories. Siring 15 or 20 offspring every year for 10 or 15 years became much more profitable (and safer) than risking a horse’s safety and earning potential on the race track. This impetus grows ever stronger with every investment manager who advises his investors to invest in thoroughbred racing stock.
Is it any wonder then that multinational syndicates like Godolphin with horse farms scattered across the globe show only passing interest in racing Sovereignty in the Preakness after his hard-fought Kentucky Derby win? Or why the Triple Crown loses more of its appeal with each passing year?
You be the judge. Let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below.
