Will The Drought End Tomorrow?

---

---

I remember the last Triple Crown winner — vaguely. I had just graduated from high school — and broken up with my girlfriend. I was going to enroll in college in the fall. I didn't really pay close attention to horse racing at that time in my life. After all, a Triple Crown? What was so special about that? It was the third one in six years.

In hindsight, the duels between eventual Triple Crown winner Affirmed and his rival Alydar were quite special. In addition to producing the most recent Triple Crown winner (in 1978), they were just darn good horse races.

I must admit that I have been pretty busy this year. I have managed to watch the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness as usual, but that has really been the extent of it this year.

Still, I learned a few things. For one, I know — as everyone knows about horses that win the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness — that American Pharoah is a speed horse. But that means nothing going into tomorrow's race. The first two races of the Triple Crown emphasize speed; the Belmont, which will be run tomorrow, is the longest race any horse will ever run, and it emphasizes endurance. It is really more of a jockey's race. The jockey must make critical decisions, such as when to make your move and dig deep for any reserves of energy. You don't really see signs of that in the Derby or the Preakness. They're over in the blink of an eye. But the Belmont is a longer race. The jockey's strategic skills combine with the horse's endurance.

I didn't realize until three weeks ago how good American Pharoah could be on a sloppy track. His victory in the Preakness was dominant in soggy conditions, which might tell us a lot if rain was in the forecast. But there's only a slight chance of rain in Elmont, N.Y., tomorrow. Should be a pleasant day, actually, with a northerly breeze and a temperature in the mid–70s.

But the track should be dry, as it was at the Kentucky Derby five weeks ago. American Pharoah's victory wasn't as dominant in that one.

---

---

That was, by far, the more dramatic race, with American Pharoah bunched with two other horses as they sprinted to the finish line. They were so tightly bunched, in fact, that I thought I was about to see my first–ever photo finish involving three horses. But American Pharoah pulled away and was the clear winner.

I've become a bit jaded about the Triple Crown in recent years. We've been disappointed a little more than one–third of the time when the Derby/Preakness winner either did not win or did not enter the Belmont; the rest of the time, there was no chance that the winner of the Belmont would win the Triple Crown because two different horses had won the Derby and the Preakness — and that meant low TV ratings and low attendance.

Last year, with California Chrome making what turned out to be an unsuccessful bid for the Triple Crown, more than 100,000 people came to the track, and things got out of hand. This year, organizers say they're putting a cap on attendance at 90,000. We'll see how that works out.

So will American Pharoah end the drought? He's the clear favorite going into the race, but I have been skeptical in recent years. I have written about that before, and I feel much the same way this time. I doubt that it will happen.

I don't have any overwhelming reason for that. I don't have a horse in mind that I think will win the race, although there are a couple of names I have been hearing mentioned frequently — Keen Ice and Frosted. Keep an eye on those horses. Even though the 1½–mile Belmont emphasizes endurance, I think it is possible that either of those horses could make a move from the start that forces American Pharoah into a speed race. Unless he really turns out to be one of those rare perfect blends of speed and endurance, he will run out of gas before he reaches the finish line.

---

---

Here's a look at the last time a horse won the Triple Crown — Affirmed's triumph in the Belmont Stakes in June of 1978.

No Triple Crown. Again.

---

---

Once again, horse racing enthusiasts were disappointed by the Belmont.

It's frustrating, this 36–year drought — the longest dry spell ever since the last Triple Crown winner. If you're 40 years old, you weren't even in grade school yet when Affirmed claimed the last Triple Crown — you probably had not even been born when Secretariat ended a then–record 25–year drought in the Triple Crown.

It's so frustrating that Steve Coburn, owner of California Chrome, the latest Triple Crown hopeful to falter in the Belmont, called the owner and trainer of the winner (Tonalist) "cowards" for not running their horse in all three Triple Crown races, as he had done.

That's been an issue with the Triple Crown for a long time. To win the Triple Crown, a horse must win three races in three different states within five weeks' time. The winner of the Kentucky Derby is not compelled to run in the Preakness two weeks later. And, if a horse wins both of those races, he is not compelled to run in the Belmont, either.

But the lure of the Triple Crown almost always brings 'em.

I wouldn't call myself an expert on horse racing, but there are a few things I know, mostly from trying to fall back on my training as a journalist and listening to what others (most of whom are experts) have to say — and most trainers say they prefer to give a horse five weeks (at least) between races. Usually, they will lean more toward six or seven weeks.

Three races in five weeks is an unbelievably grueling pace in horse racing. If that is still hard for you to understand, look at it this way.

We live in an age of sports specialization. In my father's day, there were lots of guys who played both offense and defense in football; I don't know if I can recall such a two–way player in my lifetime. Maybe there has been one, possibly two, probably born more of necessity than of skill.

When I was a boy, it wasn't unusual for pitchers to go the distance in baseball. There were a couple of relievers on most staffs in case the starter really got into trouble. Now, teams have staffs of relievers who have been trained to come in and give an inning or two before giving the ball to the closer. If a starter goes longer than six innings, he's probably pitching a no–hitter — and most likely will be yanked the minute a player from the other team gets on base.

Asking a horse to run in — and win — three races in 35 days is like asking a pitcher to throw three complete games in the space of a week.

That's why winning a Triple Crown is such an impressive accomplishment. Well, it is part of the reason.

The other part is what we saw on Saturday.

The Belmont is longer than either the Kentucky Derby (1¼ miles) or the Preakness (1 3/16 miles). The first two races are much shorter than the Belmont (1½ miles), which is justifiably called the "Test of the Champion." To win the first two races, a horse must possess speed. To win the Belmont, a horse must possess endurance.

Few horses possess both. It takes a special horse to win a Triple Crown. Only 11 horses have done it since 1875, the first year that all three races were run.

Secretariat was the greatest horse I ever saw, but there were those who questioned whether he could win a long race like the Belmont. His answer was a 31–length victory. Now that is a horse that combines speed and endurance.

Some people say a Triple Crown can't be won again. I say it can. I just can't say when.

Coburn has apologized for his outburst.

And he was right — to an extent. It isn't fair that a rested horse like Tonalist (or Commissioner, the second–place finisher) can run against a horse that has run in the Derby and the Preakness — but it happens nearly every year.

For that matter, Coburn didn't have to enter California Chrome in the Preakness and the Belmont, but he did. That was his choice.

That was his gamble — and it didn't pay off.

If you've ever placed a bet at a race track that didn't pay off, you might know how he felt — except that he didn't lose a mere $2 wager. He lost what may be his only chance to win a Triple Crown.

I understand that he felt it was unfair that Tonalist was able to get the rest Coburn's trainer believes is essential for a horse to give his best performance — while California Chrome was running not one but two races.

But that is the special challenge of the Triple Crown, isn't it? Most horses can't do it.

On the Eve of History?

It is the night before the Belmont.

California Chrome apparently is still scheduled to run for a Triple Crown tomorrow — unlike the last horse to win the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, I'll Have Another, yanked at the last minute, to the frustration of horse racing fans.

I'll admit it. I would like to see a Triple Crown winner — not the way some folks do, the ones who say they want to see one more Triple Crown winner before they die, but because I think it would be good for horse racing. And I like horse racing.

Forty years ago, the great Secretariat ended a 25–year Triple Crown drought. He breathed new life into his sport, and there were two more Triple Crown winners (and nearly a third) before the decade ended. The drought is much longer this time, and California Chrome is the 13th horse to win the first two jewels of the Triple Crown since Affirmed won the last Triple Crown in 1978.

It has been noted often that attendance at America's tracks has been declining for years — and suggested that even a Triple Crown winner won't be enough to bring those patrons back. The longer fans stay away, the harder it is to bring them back. It isn't impossible, as baseball demonstrated after a strike wiped out the 1994 World Series, but it is difficult to achieve.

Maybe too much time has passed. That happens in sports — and in life. There are windows of opportunity; when they slam shut, it is awfully difficult to open them again. Baseball was fortunate to have two charismatic players, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, dueling to set a single–season home run record in 1998. Their battle brought fans back to the ballparks, but attendance had been down in the years since the strike.

I have often wondered if baseball had reached a critical point when the McGwire–Sosa home run race captured the public's imagination. If the McGwire–Sosa duel had not materialized, would baseball have remained America's pastime?

Team sports are different from individual sports, though, and a horse is, after all, an animal, not a person who may be able to use his charisma to get back in the public's good graces. Animals have no real charisma — at least none of which they are aware, just the charisma that is generated by a picture or video.

I don't know if winning a Triple Crown can reverse horse racing's fortunes. I get the feeling, though, that, with California Chrome, I have seen this before, and I really expect to see the same kind of outcome tomorrow as we have seen nearly a dozen times since 1978.

This is how it generally seems to play out. A horse wins the Kentucky Derby (OK, that happens every year; nothing special about that, right?), but there are doubts about the horse that persist until he wins the Preakness two weeks later. Most of the time, the Preakness win is convincing enough that the questions about the horse disappear, and momentum for the two–time winner starts to build.

The horse looks great in training and is greeted with lots of hesitant–yet–hopeful hype when he arrives in New York. Now, that kind of attention has been known to turn many an athlete's head. But an animal doesn't have human emotions and can't feel the pressure of high expectations. As time passes, the conventional wisdom becomes the horse is a lock to win. Confidence begets overconfidence; overconfidence begets a belief that it will be different this time.

But it never is.

There are all kinds of ways for this to happen. I thought I had seen them all — until I'll Have Another was pulled out the day before the Belmont in 2012. When that happened, I figured that I hadn't seen them all.

It could be a repeat of something we've seen before. Smarty Jones faded in the stretch in 2004. War Emblem broke badly in 2002 and never recovered. In 1998, Real Quiet looked like he would win it, then lost at the wire. Big Brown, so dominating in the first two races in 2008, was eased out of the money in the third.

Or it might be something new — or, at least, something we have not seen in a long time.

So, in spite of all the enthusiasm about California Chrome, put me down as skeptical.

Perhaps I am wrong. Frankly, I hope I am. It would be nice to see a Triple Crown winner. And I am sincere when I say it would be good for horse racing. I do believe that.

Well, we'll find out in 24 hours.

By the way, if you're looking for something to kill some time between now and post time, USA Today reprinted a Belmont Stakes horse name generator that apparently originated in the Reno Gazette–Journal.

Give it whirl. My Belmont Stakes horse's name was Reno Prince.

There's No Such Thing as a Sure Thing

---

---

When I worked on a sports copy desk in Little Rock, I became friends with the sportswriter who covered horse racing for us.

I learned a lot from him. I remember most of the things he told me, and I will never forget what may have been the most important thing he told me: There is no such thing as a sure thing. That's why they call it gambling.

In a week and a half, California Chrome will become the 12th horse to enter the Belmont Stakes with a chance to win the Triple Crown since Affirmed became the most recent Triple Crown winner in 1978. (Well, I presume he will run in the Belmont. He might not have if he hadn't been permitted to wear the nasal strip that helped him breathe easier in the first two races — and he still might not compete. I guess we won't know for sure until the Belmont is run on June 7.)

Obviously, we've been here before — and, just as obviously, success in the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness does not mean success in the Belmont Stakes.

It's a point every Triple Crown winner must reach en route to achieving the goal, of course, and 11 horses have won all three races for 3–year–old thoroughbreds that comprise it.

That's 11 Triple Crown winners in 95 years — since Sir Barton won the first Triple Crown back in 1919. But we's have had that many horses win the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness and fail to win the Belmont since Affirmed's Triple Crown in 1978 — starting with Spectacular Bid in 1979.

There had never been three consecutive Triple Crown winners when Spectacular Bid ran in the Belmont, but, if Spectacular Bid had won that race, it would have made three straight Triple Crown winners.

On the morning of the 1979 Belmont, it was discovered that Spectacular Bid had stepped on a safety pin, and it was lodged in his hoof. He didn't appear to be lame, though, so he was allowed to run the race, and he appeared to be doing well, holding the lead at the midway point. However, he began to falter and finished third.

---

---

Since then, 10 other horses have won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness but failed to win the Belmont — and it might have been 11, but we'll never know. I'll Have Another won the first two races in 2012 but did not run in the Belmont.

Winning the first two races and losing the third wasn't a new thing in 1979. In the years before Spectacular Bid's Triple Crown attempt, eight other horses won the first two races but came up short in the third and last one. But it has been happening with greater frequency in the last 35 years.

Why is that? Well, I could be wrong, but I think it is because of the age of specialization that permeates sports these days.

Take baseball, for example. When I was growing up, it wasn't uncommon for a pitcher to throw a complete game. In fact, it was routinely expected that starting pitchers would go the distance — and relievers were called upon only when things got out of hand.

Now, baseball teams carry staffs of relief specialists who are called on (ideally) when the starter has gone six or seven innings, long enough to receive credit for the win, starting with the middle reliever and (again, ideally) proceeding to the closer.

I don't breed horses, but I gather — from my own observations and comments from those whose evaluations on such things I trust — that horses are bred for either speed or endurance, not both. To a degree, I suppose it has always been that way; I have always heard certain horses referred to as speed horses and other horses referred to as endurance horses.

I've heard some people suggest that, based on the times of the first two races, California Chrome is an endurance horse. I'm not sure about that. These assessments are made on the basis of times that differ by fifths of seconds. Sports are often described as being games of inches, though, so judging distances by fifths of seconds may not be all that different. I'm just not entirely sure it is the way to differentiate between a speed horse and an endurance horse.

Essentially, I suppose, a horse that can win all three races of the Triple Crown is both.

They call the Belmont the "test of the champion," and it really is. It is the longest of the three races by at least a quarter of a mile, thus emphasizing endurance over speed. If a horse can win the Triple Crown, he really has proven himself as an all–around champion.

In an interesting piece in The Atlantic last week, Henry Fetter wrote that even a Triple Crown winner won't be enough to save horse racing.

"[H]oping that a Triple Crown for California Chrome can jump–start a turnaround in the fortunes of the erstwhile sport of kings is almost certainly a hope too far," Fetter wrote.

I hope he's wrong.

Can California Chrome Win the Triple Crown?

---

---

As expected, California Chrome won the Kentucky Derby yesterday.

I watched the race, as I always do. I enjoyed the spectacle of the thing. I reminded myself that someday I would really like to go to Churchill Downs to watch the Kentucky Derby in person.

It isn't a Bucket List kind of thing. I know that you've probably got to have connections with people who have connections to people who have connections to the Derby merely to be able to watch from the grandstand. During my days as a sports copy editor, I knew a handicapper rather well, and he might have been such a connection for me then. But that was many years ago, and my friend is now deceased. The odds against my ever going to the Kentucky Derby must be incredible.

So it will remain the sort of thing I would like to do, but it isn't the sort of thing I absolutely positively must do, before I die. And that's OK.

Anyway, as I say, I enjoyed the spectacle of the race. It's always exciting for me to watch those horses running around that track, but each year it seems I care less about who wins — and more about whether he can win the other two races in the Triple Crown, the Preakness in two weeks and the Belmont in early June.

It has been nearly 36 years since Affirmed became the most recent horse to win the Triple Crown. Since I'll probably never get to see a Kentucky Derby in person, I would like to witness a Triple Crown winner.

There are those who follow horse racing who will tell you that a Triple Crown can not be won — but they have been saying that for decades, whenever there is a gap between Triple Crown winners. Thirty–six years and counting is the longest such drought in Triple Crown history, which encourages the naysayers all the more.

The Kentucky Derby is the clean slate for the Triple Crown. Once it is over, there is only one horse that can win the Triple Crown that year. But before the Run for the Roses, the number of horses that could win the Triple Crown is however many horses are running at Churchill Downs.

The Preakness is always important in the quest for the Triple Crown, but it can be misleading. Since Affirmed won the Triple Crown, a dozen horses have won both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, but none won the Belmont.

(In fact, it has been 10 years since a horse won the Derby and the Preakness and even finished the Belmont. Big Brown didn't finish in 2008, and I'll Have Another was scratched in 2012.)

Why is that so? Well, the Derby and the Preakness are shorter races. They're practically the same distance, and they favor speed. The Belmont is considerably longer, and it favors endurance.

Few horses combine both. The legendary Secretariat did, coming from behind to win the first two jewels but seizing control of the Belmont and winning it by 30 lengths. The video tape of that race is the most amazing thing you will ever see at a race track.

Judging from the somewhat pedestrian pace of yesterday's Kentucky Derby, which was run on a warm, sunny day and a dry track, this year's field may lean toward endurance. That could encourage owners of speed horses to challenge California Chrome at Pimlico on May 17, and he may wind up facing horses he hasn't seen before.

If you are mostly unfamiliar with horse racing and don't really follow it until this five–week period in May and June, you probably don't think of two weeks as being short rest, but for nearly all horsemen, it is probably the equivalent of sending your ace pitcher back out to the mound a couple of days after his last start.

It simply isn't done.

Well, except during the run for the Triple Crown — three races, three states, five–week period. That's like an Iron Man Triathlon for horses.

"I'm not real comfortable with running him back in two weeks, but I know that's what we're bound to do," California Chrome's trainer told Reuters. "I'm more the kind of guy who likes to wait seven or eight weeks between races. These horses run hard and they need time to recover."

No records were set in yesterday's race. Don't expect any two weeks from now.

Citation's Triple Crown

---

---

It was 65 years ago today that Citation won the Belmont Stakes and became American horse racing's eighth Triple Crown winner.

It would be 25 years before a horse won the Triple Crown again.

Only Man O' War and Secretariat rank ahead of Citation on Blood–Horse magazine's list of the top 100 racehorses of the 20th century — and deservedly so. He was the first horse to win $1 million.

Considering the affect that inflation tends to have on monetary amounts, there may be other horses who won the equivalent of $1 million in their day, but Citation actually did win $1 million. In fact, his career earnings were close to $1.1 million.

And, of course, he won the Triple Crown, which is something Man O' War never did — but that is probably because his owner didn't like racing in Kentucky so he didn't enter Man O' War in the Kentucky Derby. Man O' War did win the other two jewels of the Triple Crown, but it wasn't known as the Triple Crown in those days so I doubt it mattered to most people.

But when Citation came along about 30 years later, it did matter.

It's been my experience that the best, most successful thoroughbreds have their preferred jockeys who always ride them in the major races. I don't know why a horse has such a preference; it just seems that way. Affirmed, the 1978 Triple Crown winner, had young Steve Cauthen aboard. The year before, Jean Cruguet rode Seattle Slew to the Triple Crown. Secretariat had Ron Turcotte. And so on.

---

---

Citation won with more than one jockey. He didn't really seem to have a preference. He was quite successful with a jockey named Albert Snider, who rode him to his U.S. championship as a 2–year–old, but Snider drowned before the Triple Crown races were held in 1948. For awhile, Steve Brooks rode Citation, then Hall of Famer Eddie Arcaro rode him to the Triple Crown.

Arcaro, by the way, is the only jockey to win two Triple Crowns. He did it the first time a decade earlier aboard Lawrin (who, it is worth mentioning, did not make Blood–Horse's list). It was obvious to Citation's owner that Arcaro knew what he was doing.

Still, Citation was able to win no matter who was riding him. Granted, he did lose his first start with Arcaro aboard — but he didn't lose again for a couple of years. Arcaro said Citation was the best horse he ever rode.

A lot of horse people said — and many still say — Citation was the best of all time — better even than Secretariat or Man O' War. He was before my time so I'm not really qualified to make that assessment, but I can say that, based on the film footage I have seen, he was clearly one of the best — if not the best.

Citation probably would have won the Kentucky Derby (which he did by 3½ lengths) no matter who was riding him, but Arcaro still made the generous gesture of giving Snider's widow half the Derby purse. Arcaro didn't have to do that, but Snider did most of the work in preparing Citation for his 3–year–old season and the Triple Crown. There was no legal obligation, but Arcaro clearly felt that there was a moral one.

Two weeks later, Citation won the Preakness by 5½ lengths — and three weeks later, on this day in 1948, he became the eighth horse to win the Triple Crown.

A Test to the Wire

---

---

Thirty–five years ago today, thoroughbred racing witnessed the crowning of its most recent Triple Crown winner.

At the time, it seemed embarrassingly routine. Between 1973 and 1978, there were three Triple Crown winners. There have been none since.

Some folks think 1978 will be the last time a horse ever wins the Triple Crown. Maybe it will be. I hope not. I'd like to see another Triple Crown winner in my lifetime.

When this year's edition of the Belmont was run a couple of days ago, I already knew there would be no Triple Crown winner in 2013. But no one knew if there would be a Triple Crown winner when this day dawned in 1978. Everyone knew it was possible, but everyone also knew that the winner of the first two races, Affirmed, would have to hold off his top challenger in those races, Alydar.

And that was something Affirmed had barely been able to do in the two speed races of the Triple Crown. The question on this day was whether he could do it in the distance race, the Belmont Stakes.

The Affirmed–Alydar rivalry actually went back farther than the 1978 Triple Crown. They were old foes. The previous year, as 2–year–olds, they faced each other frequently. They were probably horse racing's answer to Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier or Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, two other prominent rivalries of the '70s.

Affirmed surged to an early lead and clung to the lead throughout the race, but along the backstretch, Alydar pulled nearly even, and the two shared the lead for the rest of the Belmont. For awhile as the horses ran down the stretch, Alydar had the lead; briefly, it appeared there would be no Triple Crown winner in 1978.

As befits a great rivalry, though, the battle of the Belmont wasn't decided until the very end, as legendary race announcer Chic Anderson said. Anderson (who made a memorable call when Secretariat won the Belmont by an incredible 30 lengths five years before) observed that Affirmed and Alydar were running neck and neck down the stretch. "We'll test these two to the wire!" he exclaimed.

And so they did. Affirmed barely won the race — and the Triple Crown. Riding Affirmed to that Triple Crown was 18–year–old Steve Cauthen, the youngest jockey ever to sweep the Triple Crown races.

As no horse has won the Triple Crown since that day, it follows that Cauthen's record has been unchallenged in the last 35 years. Will that record ever be broken?

Making It Look Ridiculously Easy

---

---

"It was Secretariat's 17th visit to the winner's circle and the only time he ever got there without working for it."

Red Smith

---

Winning the Belmont Stakes wasn't supposed to seem this easy.

They call it "the test of champions," and, at 1½ miles, that's exactly what it is.

Nevertheless, 40 years ago today, Secretariat won the Belmont Stakes in the most dominating way imaginable — by more than 30 lengths.

I know that not everyone who reads this is a horse racing enthusiast so let me define the term length for you. A length refers to the distance from a horse's nose to the tip of its tail — roughly 8 feet.

Therefore, a horse that wins a race by 30 lengths — this isn't an exact measurement, of course, merely an approximation — wins by about 240 feet — or eight–tenths of the length of a football field.

On the day of the race, a viewer could start counting — "One Mississippi, two Mississippi ..." — when Secretariat crossed the finish line and get to about "six Mississippi" before any other horse crossed it.

That's domination.

Of course, most of the major horse owners decided not to compete in the 1973 Belmont. Aside from Secretariat and his primary rival in that year's Triple Crown races, Sham, there were only three other horses entered in the race. Most owners conceded that the Belmont would be, essentially, a match race between Secretariat and Sham.

Ironically, though, Sham did not finish second to Secretariat that day. In fact, he finished last.

You might not have thought so the way the first half of the race went. Secretariat, who typically started in the back of the pack, uncharacteristically broke well and surged along the rail to take an early lead with Sham in hot pursuit on the outside, and, for the first half of the Belmont, the two ran virtually stride for stride with the other horses trailing farther and farther behind.

Then on the backstretch Secretariat began to pull away from Sham. As the horses made the turn, race caller Chic Anderson memorably said, "[Secretariat] is moving like a tremendous machine!" How could anyone forget that?

Actually, I have two specific memories of that weekend.

There is the memory of the actual race, of course. It was run, as the Triple Crown races always are, on a Saturday afternoon. I was a young boy. Summer vacation had just begun, and my family was visiting my grandmothers in Dallas. I remember being in my maternal grandmother's living room watching her TV and being amazed at Secretariat's performance.

I had seen several horse races on TV by that time — and I have seen quite a few in person since — and I have never seen another horse leave all the other horses in the dust like that. Never.

And Anderson's call has the iconic staying power of Al Michaels' exclamation, "Do you believe in miracles?" at the conclusion of the Olympic hockey game between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in 1980. Every time I have heard it in the last 40 years, it has taken me back to that sunny June afternoon.

The other memory is of the following day. My family took my father's mother out for lunch at a cafeteria she liked a lot. This cafeteria had portraits of the presidents lining the wall. It was known locally for those portraits as much as it was known for any of its dishes, and it was one of my favorite places to go because, well, I've had an interest in presidents since I was little.

(I can't explain it. My mother might be able to say when this fascination began, but she's been dead for nearly 20 years, and there's no point in asking my father because he was frequently absent in my early childhood — later childhood, too, for that matter, but that's another story.)

---

---

Anyway, whenever we visited Dallas, we always managed to visit this cafeteria — sometimes with Grandmother, sometimes not. It was the Highland Park Cafeteria. I'm not honestly certain that I ever knew that when I was a child. To me, it was the place with the pictures of the presidents.

Ordinarily, as I recall, the people who stood in line at the cafeteria commented on the presidential portraits that lined the wall. The portraits of the more recent presidents always prompted people to say things like "I was [insert age/marital status/place of residence/employed by/other relevant observation here] when he became president."

On that Sunday, however, everyone was talking about Secretariat.

On one level, that is understandable. Secretariat was the first Triple Crown winner in 25 years.

But that was also the summer of the Senate Watergate Committee. Allegations had been made regarding the conduct of the sitting president — who had just been re–elected about seven months earlier in one of the most lopsided elections in history.

But no one was talking about that in a cafeteria line with portraits of the presidents on the wall.

Everyone was talking about a racehorse.

Getting Nosed Out of a Triple Crown

---

---

In the 35 years since Affirmed became the most recent winner of thoroughbred racing's Triple Crown, a dozen horses have won the first two jewels but, for one reason or another, each came up short in the third jewel, the Belmont.

That is, if they competed in the Belmont at all.

But only one — Real Quiet — lost the Belmont by a nose — literally. The winner was Canadian–born Victory Gallop, the second–place finisher in the first two races.

It happened 15 years ago today.

The 1998 Triple Crown duel between Victory Gallop and Real Quiet will almost certainly be the inspiration for a dramatic book or documentary someday. It does not yet occupy that spot in popular memory that the Affirmed–Alydar battle of 1978 does — but I am confident that it will. All it needs is the right person to tell the story.

It practically tells itself.

In the Kentucky Derby in early May, Real Quiet held off hard–charging Victory Gallop to win the first jewel. Two weeks later, Real Quiet again defeated Victory Gallop, this time by about two lengths, in the Preakness Stakes.

But, in the much longer Belmont Stakes in early June, the finish was reversed. Victory Gallop won a thrilling race over Real Quiet, and the Triple Crown drought went on.

It has to be one of the most thrilling upsets I have witnessed in my life.

And it was a reminder that they don't call the Belmont Stakes "the test of champions" for nothing. At 1½ miles, it is the longest race that any horse will ever run and calls for endurance whereas the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness are shorter and emphasize speed.

Few horses possess both stamina and speed, which is why horses that win the first two Triple Crown races — as Real Quiet did in 1998 — frequently stumble in the third.

And yet, Real Quiet almost pulled off horse racing's hat trick. He had a clear lead as the horses made the final turn and ran for the finish line, but Victory Gallop lived up to his name and was even with Real Quiet when they crossed it.

It reminds me of the pitch of a cigarette commercial when I was a child. The ad was about how most extra–long cigarettes were 100 millimeters, but this particular cigarette was 101 millimeters — so consumers got a little more for their money. The jingle said this cigarette was "a silly millimeter longer."

A furlong isn't nearly as short as a millimeter (in truth, it is an eighth of a mile), but it's the basic measurement in horse racing so we'll have to use that for our example. If the race had been a furlong shorter, Real Quiet would have won the Triple Crown with ease. If it had been a furlong longer, Victory Gallop would have been the clear winner. No photo would have been necessary in either case.

But the order of finish of the actual distance was too close for the naked eye, and thus the fabled photo finish was required. And the photo revealed that the winner was Victory Gallop — by a nose.

Even though Real Quiet didn't win the Belmont, I think he demonstrated that he did possess that rare equine combination of speed and stamina. But so did Victory Gallop.

---

---

However, it might not have been quite so cut and dried for Real Quiet if he had been the winner of the race.

The New York Times reported that, if Real Quiet had prevailed, he might have been disqualified "because he brushed Victory Gallop twice in the homestretch."

Personally, I'm not so sure about that one. I have watched recordings of that race many times, and I have never seen Real Quiet brush Victory Gallop. But it's hard to tell. If I could see a recording from the front, where it could be determined if there was space between the horses, my determination might be different. But I don't know if such a recording exists — or existed at the time.

Tom Keyser of the Baltimore Sun called Real Quiet's loss "crushing" — which, although often overused, is sometimes the only word that is truly descriptive, and this was one of those times.

When I was a child, I heard the phrase photo finish many times, but it was always in a hypothetical sense. I never actually saw one — until 15 years ago today, when it was made real for me with nothing less than a Triple Crown riding on the outcome.

Making History at the Belmont

---

---

The Belmont Stakes has been the scene of great drama over the years.

That stands to reason, doesn't it, since the Belmont is the third jewel in the Triple Crown. If a horse comes into the Belmont having already won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, a win in the Belmont will secure a Triple Crown. Eleven horses have done that since World War I.

Twenty–two others came into the Belmont with wins in those two races but failed to pull off the hat trick. Most failed to win the Belmont; a few, for one reason or another, were not entered.

But it still can be a dramatic race even if a Triple Crown is not on the line — which it will not be this year.

That being the case, a certain amount of attention can be expected to be given in Saturday's race to Rosie Napravnik, who is the first female jockey to ride in all three Triple Crown races in the same year. Napravnik will be riding Unlimited Budget, a filly and currently an 8–to–1 shot starting in the 13th position.

Napravnik would certainly make news if she wins — once she rides in the Belmont, she will make history as the first female to ride in all three Triple Crown races in the same year — but she won't make history as the first woman to win a Triple Crown race. That distinction was achieved by Julie Krone, who won the Belmont Stakes aboard Colonial Affair 20 years ago today.

"I've been in one Derby, and this is my third Belmont," Krone said before the race. "But I've never thought of the fact that I haven't won a Triple Crown race. I'm not like that. I always look at the sunshine of things."

The '93 Belmont was an example of why I love to watch horse racing. There really is no such thing as a sure thing.

Colonial Affair was practically an afterthought through much of the race, holding back in the pack behind half a dozen other horses who set the early pace. As the horses made their way along the backstretch, Colonial Affair seemed to be settled in sixth place.

Not much movement could be detected in the order of the horses as they made the turn and started down the homestretch. But then, Colonial Affair seemed to appear from nowhere on the outside and sprinted past the leader to a two–length victory.

Oh, to have been a gambler with the knowledge of how that race would play out! A $2 wager on the 13–to–1 shot paid $29.80, $14.80 and $9.40.

---

---

"I don't think the question needs to be genderized," Krone said when asked how it felt to be the first woman to win a Triple Crown race. "It would feel great to anyone. But whether you're a girl or a boy or a Martian, you still have to go out and prove yourself again every day."

I would say she proved herself.

Krone retired in 1999 with 3,545 career wins, the most ever for a woman. In 2000, she became the first female jockey inducted into the National Museum of Racing's Hall of Fame. She came out of retirement for a year and finished her career with more than 3,700 victories.

Unlimited Budget doesn't face the long odds that Colonial Affair did, but observers believe the winners of the first two races, Orb and Oxbow, are the favorites to win on Saturday.

Prepping for the Preakness

---

---

If Andrew Beyer of the Washington Post is correct, Kentucky Derby winner Orb should have no trouble winning today's Preakness.

The temperature is supposed to be mild in Baltimore today — around 72° with a slight chance of rain. That's important because, as anyone who saw the Kentucky Derby two weeks ago will attest, the first race in the Triple Crown was run in muddy conditions.

Thus, the question today is, did Orb win the Kentucky Derby because of or in spite of the track conditions? Well, that's how I see it, anyway.

Beyer, though, thinks the key factor is the small field.

"The second–, third– and fourth–place finishers at Churchill Downs will not be at Pimlico," Beyer observes. "Just eight horses will challenge Orb, and it is difficult to make a solid case for any of them."

Jerry Bossert of the New York Daily News makes a solid case for how the race will play out — and he, too, thinks Orb will win it.

"[T]he Triple Crown dream continues for three more weeks," he writes.

At this point, that is something that is not obvious. It remains to be seen.

But of all the pre–Preakness opining I have seen, Bill Dwyre of the Los Angeles Times may be the master of the obvious when he writes that the stakes are highest for Orb in today's race.

Well, duh.

It's always the most crucial. If the Kentucky Derby winner loses the Preakness, the interest level for the Belmont three weeks later plummets — to the point where only folks in the industry and diehard racing fans will care who wins.

But if the Kentucky Derby winner also wins the Preakness, the Belmont becomes a prime attraction, and advertising will sell at Super Bowl–like rates. We're in the midst of a 35–year drought in the pursuit of a Triple Crown, and horse racing could use one.

Everything hinges on the Preakness. And Chris Korman writes in the Baltimore Sun that Orb is simply better than the rest. Whereas "[t]he Derby winner's reputation always balloons somewhere on the road from Louisville to [Baltimore]," he writes, "Orb's ascension has nearly made the rest of the field an afterthought."

If Orb wins today's Preakness, TV ratings for the Belmont could set records.

Another Disappointment

Everyone — even the most privileged who walk the earth — must have felt it at some time.

That helpless, vulnerable, rug–pulled–out–from–under–your–feet feeling.

That's how I felt when I heard the news that I'll Have Another, the winner of this year's Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes, had been scratched from today's Belmont Stakes.

This is the longest drought between Triple Crown winners in thoroughbred racing history. Those of us who enjoy watching horse racing have grown wary of Triple Crowns. Almost no one ever speaks about the possibility after the Kentucky Derby, preferring to wait and see if its winner is more than a flash in the pan — and there have been nearly two dozen of those since 1978.

But there have also been a dozen horses — including I'll Have Another — that won the first two races and came to the Belmont in search of that elusive Triple Crown. The others came up short, either spectacularly so or, more rarely, by narrow margins.

There is a reason why the Belmont is called the test of champions. The first two races are shorter. They were designed with speed horses in mind. But the Belmont is longer. It favors endurance.

It is a rare horse — a Secretariat — that combines both speed and endurance.

I've enjoyed watching the horses run since I was a child. Nearly 40 years ago, I saw my first Triple Crown winner (on TV, not in person), then two more came along in what was (and still is) rapid–fire succession for thoroughbred racing.

And we have had no more since.

We've had plenty of near misses since Affirmed won the 1978 Triple Crown.

---

---

Perhaps the most colon–tighteningly, tantalizingly, exasperatingly close near miss of them all was the 2004 Belmont Stakes, in which Birdstone overtook Smarty Jones and denied him the Triple Crown by a single length. Smarty Jones seemed to possess both speed and endurance. It was a real disappointment when he failed.

Most of the time, it is a speed horse that comes to the Belmont and loses — big. And that, in itself, answers the question that follows the exceptional horses that win the first two to the third jewel of the Triple Crown: Is this horse more than a speed horse?

Since 1978, all the two–time winners have had their opportunity to answer that question on the track.

But it will never be answered in the case of I'll Have Another. Instead of making a bid for horse racing immortality this afternoon, he was retired.

There was never going to be a shortage of important sports events today. Earlier, Maria Sharapova won the women's final at the French Open. She is now one of a handful of tennis players who won a career Grand Slam — at least one singles title in each of the four Grand Slam events.

Tonight, the Los Angeles Kings will try to win their first–ever Stanley Cup. And the Miami Heat and the Boston Celtics will play for the right to face Oklahoma City in the NBA finals.

But all that would have been overshadowed by far if I'll Have Another had won the Belmont.

Somebody wins the NBA championship, the Stanley Cup and the women's final of the French Open every year.

But it's been 34 years since a horse won the Triple Crown.

More Than Ready for Another

Tim Layden of Sports Illustrated laments the fact that "[a] generation of American adults is approaching middle age without having seen a horse win the Triple Crown."

And, as a horse racing fan, I, too, find that lamentable. But I am still enough of an optimist to believe — unlike many who follow the sport more closely than I — that it still can be done.

In my life, I have known some people who were quite knowledgeable about horse racing, and I have often heard them say that, because the first two races are much shorter than the third, to win a Triple Crown, a horse must possess both speed and endurance.

Such horses have been referred to as "super horses" at least since the time of the great Secretariat — who really was a super horse.

The distances of the Triple Crown races have varied over the years, but the distances have not changed since 1926, and all but one of the 11 Triple Crown winners have accomplished the feat since that time.

So, while it may be that it will take a "super horse" to break the drought between Triple Crown winners (which is currently 34 years), super horses weren't some sort of phenomenon that burst on to the scene, dominated the sport for a period and then disappeared.

Generations of horses have come and gone since Gallant Fox won all three races in 1930 (when it wasn't officially called the Triple Crown).

Affirmed, in 1978, was the last horse to win the Triple Crown, and I'll Have Another will be the 12th horse since that time to enter the Belmont Stakes with victories in both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness.

The other 11 came up short, but Layden offers hope that, this time, things will be different.

I'll Have Another, Layden reports, "is so formidable because he has a useful combination of natural speed ... and stubborn cardiovascular endurance."

If that is true, the Triple Crown may well be within his grasp.

Meanwhile, I'll Have Another's preparations for his date with destiny appear to be coming along nicely. The Associated Press reports that, after two days of jogging on the Belmont Park oval, he is set to resume galloping tomorrow.

His assistant trainer was enthusiastic. "[H]e gets over the track fantastic," Jack Sisterson said, "he looked super, his energy level is high and he's doing everything we want to see him doing."

Sounds promising.

On the Brink of a Triple Crown

---

---

About midway through the week, I began searching for articles about today's Preakness Stakes in Baltimore.

I wanted to find out if veteran handicappers thought Kentucky Derby winner I'll Have Another had a chance of winning today's race — and, consequently, continuing to contend for the Triple Crown.

I found few articles that spoke of him the way articles in the past have lauded the Kentucky Derby winner.

That's understandable. The last time the Kentucky Derby winner went on to win the Preakness was in 2008. In fact, only 10 times since Affirmed won the 1978 Triple Crown had the Kentucky Derby winner gone on to win the Preakness. That is less than one–third of the time.

With that kind of history, horse racing writers had every reason to be hesitant to build up I'll Have Another until today's race was in the books.

Well, it is in the books now, and my guess is that we'll be hearing a lot about I'll Have Another in the next three weeks.

Because he did win today's Preakness — and it was perhaps the most exciting Preakness I have ever seen.

Once again, Bodemeister, the horse that led the Kentucky Derby most of the way, was the leader in the Preakness — again, most of the way.

And, once again, I'll Have Another overtook him at the end — and won the Preakness by a head. Literally.

Last year, three different horses won the Triple Crown races. And, at the time, I wrote that it was not so much a sign of a mediocre thoroughbred field as it was an indication that horse racing was enjoying a period of parity in which every race was competitive.

Those were exciting races, to be sure.

But anyone who is a fan of horse racing is likely to appreciate the fact that, for only the 11th time in the last 34 years, we can anticipate the possibility of a Triple Crown winner when the Belmont is run three weeks from today.

Even casual fans will know — if they don't already — that this year's Belmont will be something rare and extraordinary. It will be an event — and not, as it has been for the last three years, the anticlimactic conclusion to the Triple Crown season.

As I have mentioned here before, I teach journalism and writing to students in the Dallas County community college system, and nearly all the students with whom I have worked in the last couple of years were born at least a decade after the last Triple Crown winner.

If I'll Have Another does win the Belmont — and, with it, the Triple Crown — it will be the kind of thing that comes along once in a generation — if that.

I know many people who were born in 1979 or after — and, as a consequence, have not seen a Triple Crown winner. Some of them have died — and some may die before the Belmont is run — and will, as a consequence, never see a Triple Crown winner.

There is, of course, that one last hurdle for I'll Have Another, and it has wrecked many potential Triple Crown winners. At 1½ miles, it is the longest of the three, a quarter of a mile longer than the Kentucky Derby and more than one–third of a mile longer than the race that was run today.

After two races that emphasized speed, the Belmont prizes endurance. That is why it is known as the "Test of Champions." And it is quite a test.

We will find out if I'll Have Another is a super horse, one that is fast but can also handle long distances. Most horses are either one or the other. Triple Crown winners tend to be exceptions to the rule.

It should make for an entertaining afternoon three weeks from today.

Will the Cycle Be Broken?

---

---

Affirmed was the last horse to win thoroughbred racing's Triple Crown in 1978.

Thirty–three Triple Crown opportunities have come and gone since then, but no horse has won all three races. It's the longest drought since Sir Barton won the first Triple Crown in 1919, and many people think it is the kind of thing that cannot be done again.

Most decades have had no Triple Crown winners at all. Three — the 1930s, 1940s and 1970s — produced multiple winners, and their names read like the roster of a horse racing's Who's Who or the Top 10 of Blood–Horse magazine's 100 greatest thoroughbreds of the 20th century.

Anyway, history — not to mention common sense — suggests that, if no horse wins a Triple Crown by the middle of a decade, that decade isn't likely to have a Triple Crown winner.

This decade is still relatively young. We can go a couple more years without a Triple Crown winner before — historically speaking — it will be seen as too late.

But we've already waited more than 30 years. Horse racing fans are understandably anxious.

Admittedly, it's a little premature to be asking this question, but what are the chances we'll be anticipating a Triple Crown winner in three weeks when the horses are about to run in the Belmont, the third and last jewel?

For that to happen, I'll Have Another must win in Baltimore.

David Ginsburg of the Associated Press seems to think the chances are pretty good that Kentucky Derby winner I'll Have Another will prevail — even though he is the Morning Line's second choice behind Bodemeister, the horse he overcame to win the Run for the Roses.

Chris Korman of the Baltimore Sun writes that I'll Have Another has been running well in his pre–Preakness training sessions.

Bodemeister does have his supporters, though, like Andrew Beyer of the Washington Post.

Beyer writes that "[w]hen serious bettors evaluate what has happened in a race, they don't necessarily focus on who won and who lost. They understand that outcomes are determined not only by horses' talent but by race dynamics — pace, traffic trouble, ground loss, all the things that constitute a horse's 'trip.' They try to consider all of these factors in order to judge after the fact who ran best because that conclusion may be the key to betting a future race."

Bodemeister had the "toughest trip" of any of the horses in the Kentucky Derby, Beyer writes, because he was forced to run a faster pace from the start than he would have preferred. Yet he still almost won at Churchill Downs.

"Run the Kentucky Derby 100 times in an alternate universe and he'll capture a plurality of them."

At Pimlico on Saturday, Beyer writes, "there is only one reason to question Bodemeister, and it has nothing to do with his talent. The colt has crammed his whole five–race career into the span of four months, and the exertions may have taken a toll on him."

Jay Privman of the Daily Racing Form writes that winning the Derby exposed the many layers of Doug O'Neill, the trainer of I'll Have Another.

"His has been a complicated, multi–dimensional career, alternately praised for winning major races and multiple titles, yet questioned by racing authorities for violations O'Neill disputes," Privman writes.

I suspect the controversies will only intensify if O'Neill's horse wins on Saturday.

Not Such a Rarity After All

---

---

Yesterday, I predicted that the Belmont Stakes would produce something almost as rare as a Triple Crown winner — even though the possibility of a Triple Crown winner ended in Baltimore three weeks earlier.

I said Kentucky Derby winner Animal Kingdom would become the 12th horse since 1919 to win the first and third jewels of the Triple Crown. That didn't happen, though. Instead, Ruler On Ice won the race — and, for the third straight year (and fifth of the last six), three different horses won the three jewels of the Triple Crown.

Having three different winners has been the most common outcome of the Triple Crown races. Nothing very special about it — except, perhaps, how it came to be.

There was a bit of a collision at the start of the race, and Animal Kingdom almost lost his jockey. He made a valiant attempt to come from behind the way he did in the Kentucky Derby (and almost did in the Preakness), but even the more expansive Belmont Park wasn't long enough for him to make up the lost ground.

Mark Breech of Sports Illustrated was reminded of War Emblem, winner of the first two jewels of the Triple Crown in 2002.

War Emblem stumbled out of the gate in the Belmont, and his bid for a Triple Crown was over.

Preakness winner Shackleford fared quite a bit better, contending until the home stretch, but it was widely believed before the race that he couldn't handle the Belmont's distance — and, as it turned out, he couldn't.

Fans of horse racing may be sad to see this Triple Crown series come to an end while the historic drought (33 years and counting) goes on.

But, as Breech observed, "For all the complaints, this was actually a fun Triple Crown campaign." And I agree.

I sometimes wonder if I will ever see another Triple Crown winner in my lifetime. It would be great to see it happen one more time.

But, if it does, I wonder if it could match the drama — or the accessibility — of this year's Triple Crown races. There has been much talk of the mediocrity of this year's crop of 3–year–olds, but perhaps competitiveness was mistaken for mediocrity.

Breech may have summed it up best:

"Thoroughbred racing may be the Sport of Kings, but in 2011 at least, just this once, it was a game for everybody. Bravo."

Testing the Champions

One of the most enduring memories from my adolescence is of watching Secretariat wipe out the field in the Belmont Stakes and claim the Triple Crown.

On that afternoon in June 1973, Secretariat recorded an incredible 31–length victory.

I don't expect to see anything like that this afternoon.

I know we won't witness the end of the Triple Crown drought.

But I do believe we will see something that is just as rare. I believe we will see a horse win the first and third jewels of the Triple Crown.

Eleven horses have won the Triple Crown since 1919. The same number have pulled off that 1–3 split — and only two have done so since Affirmed won the Triple Crown in 1978.

(By comparison, since 1919, 21 horses won the first two jewels of the Triple Crown but failed to complete the sweep, and 13 horses lost the Kentucky Derby but went on to win the last two jewels of the Triple Crown.)

Animal Kingdom won the Kentucky Derby last month, and Shackleford won the Preakness — but Shackleford was fading at the end and barely kept Animal Kingdom from pulling off an amazing come–from–behind win.

Nearly three weeks ago, Mark Breech of Sports Illustrated observed that it was "almost inconceivable" that Shackleford could win the grueling Belmont Stakes — known as the Test of Champions — after fading noticeably in the shorter Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes.

"Animal Kingdom has been the fastest horse at the end of both of the first two races in this series," Breech wrote. "Having more room to run can only be to his benefit."

I agreed with that when I read it the first time. I still agree with it today, about three hours before race time.

Breech's colleague at Sports Illustrated, Gene Menez, is on the Animal Kingdom bandwagon, too, but he insists that the hype about today's race being Round 3 between Animal Kingdom and Shackleford sells the rest of the field short.

It is "more than just a two–horse race," he writes.

And he mentions several horses that could pull off upset wins. It wouldn't be a new experience for a longshot to win the Belmont. Three have done so in the last decade.

But Menez is sticking with Animal Kingdom. "Everything points to another big race from the Derby winner," he writes.

Brad Telias of The Sporting News rightly calls the Belmont "a race like no other."

And, when all is said and done, Telias picks Nehro in "a mild upset." That isn't a bad choice; Nehro, as he points out, was an "impressive runner–up" to Animal Kingdom in the Kentucky Derby and should be well rested after skipping the Preakness three weeks ago.

"Animal Kingdom will relish the distance and he's coming in the race without showing any signs of fatigue or wear and tear," writes Telias. "His downfall may come from his come–from–behind style in a race that promises a slow pace."

I'm sticking with Animal Kingdom.

No Cure for the 'Summer' Time Blues

---

---

We knew going into yesterday's Belmont Stakes that there would be no Triple Crown winner in horse racing this year.

But there was hope that Calvin Borel would accomplish an unprecedented Triple Crown for a jockey — winning all three races but not on the same horse. As it turned out, though, that didn't happen, either.

Aboard Mine That Bird, the horse he rode to victory in the Kentucky Derby five weeks earlier, Borel finished third in yesterday's Belmont to the horse that is being called the "other Bird," Summer Bird.

The jockey who rode Summer Bird to victory yesterday, Kent Desormeaux, should know how Borel feels. He came up short of Triple Crowns aboard Real Quiet in 1998 and Big Brown last year, losing the Belmont both times.

The 1½–mile Belmont is known as the "Test of the Champion," and for good reason. The first two races in the Triple Crown — the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes — are shorter distances. The Belmont is longer than most 3–year–old horses are accustomed to, creating all sorts of problems for jockeys.

The Belmont has been known to do this to horses in the past. Last year, Big Brown was merely the latest in a parade of disappointments.

But it seems appropriate that the final jewel in the Triple Crown should present challenges that the first two do not.

Because overcoming the obstacles makes winning the Triple Crown a greater achievement.

Desormeaux has known the disappointment of coming up short in the Belmont. And now, so has Borel.

In Pursuit of a Triple Crown

In the past, a Triple Crown in thoroughbred horse racing has referred to a horse winning all three races — the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont.

It is not possible for the same horse to win all three races this year, but it is still possible for the same jockey to win all three races, and that is what Calvin Borel will seek to do this afternoon. They're calling this unprecedented achievement the "Calvin Crown."

Borel rode Mine That Bird to victory in the May 2 Kentucky Derby, then he switched horses and rode filly Rachel Alexandra to victory in the Preakness two weeks later. Today, he's back on Mine That Bird.

Oddsmakers have established Mine That Bird as a 2–1 pick to win, but Charitable Man is a 3–1 pick and Dunkirk is 4–1. Based on the odds, Mine That Bird can expect some stiff competition today.

As Ed Gray observes in the Boston Herald, today's race represents a new challenge for Mine That Bird.

Borel and the horse will "will have to adjust to the 1–mile oval with wide sweeping turns and long stretches," Gray writes. "The pace of the Belmont is usually slower than it is in the first two legs of the Triple Crown, which may not play into the hand of a drop–back, one–run closer like Mine That Bird."

The Belmont track may be a challenge for Mine That Bird, but SI.com observes that the jockey has the confidence he needs.

" 'Like I have been telling you, he will win,' Borel said" in a Namath–like guarantee, reports SI.com. " 'Winning a Triple Crown might not be on the same horse but it'ts very good for me and my career.' "

Wallace Matthews writes, in Newsday, that the Belmont "separates the merely good from the great."

As anyone who has been looking for work in this economy knows, confidence is a significant part of the battle. We'll find out today if it can carry Borel to a "Calvin Crown" — and establish him as "great" as opposed to "merely good."

The 1½–mile track does, indeed, pose a challenge for Mine That Bird. If Borel can ride his mount to victory, it will be quite an achievement.

I hope he can do it. But my guess is that he won't. I'm thinking that Mine That Bird will finish second, just as he did three weeks ago, even though he has a talented jockey riding him.

Here are my picks in today's race:

1. Charitable Man


2. Mine That Bird


3. Chocolate Candy

You can see the race on ABC. Coverage begins at 4 p.m. (Central), but the race won't run until more than an hour later.