Will Animal Kingdom Rule the Preakness?

---

---

You really don't have to be blessed with any special insights to predict that the winner of the Kentucky Derby will not win the second jewel in horse racing's Triple Crown.

Since Affirmed won the Triple Crown in 1978, roughly one–third of the horses that won the Kentucky Derby went on to win the Preakness two weeks later. In the last six years, only Big Brown (in 2008) has accomplished it.

Last year's Derby winner, Super Saver, lost the Preakness, fading at the end when Lookin at Lucky seemed to come from nowhere to seize control.

Up to that point, Super Saver had been among the leaders, but, after Lookin at Lucky made his move, Super Saver was like a balloon that lost all of its air and deflated, finishing out of the money.

That's the thing that casual observers of horse racing don't really understand. A horse race isn't just a horse race. Distance matters. So does surface — and experience.

The surface will be the same as Animal Kingdom encountered two weeks ago, and the distance will be almost what it was — but the great intangible for him is the fact that his racing history is not extensive enough for anyone to know what to expect.

With a record that could be written on a cocktail napkin, Animal Kingdom is one big question mark — and that is the sort of thing that, back in the day, would have made all of my old railbird friends uneasy, to say the least.

Being the defending Kentucky Derby winner, the odds on Animal Kingdom won't reflect the absence of experience going into the Preakness on Saturday — the way they did two weeks ago — but they should.

Today, with the Preakness only days away, observers are wondering if Animal Kingdom, a 20–1 shot when he won the Derby, can keep alive for a while longer the dream that a horse will win the Triple Crown this year.

That is the question. It's as clear as it can be. Can he do it?

The answer is not as clear. Not yet.

Yes, says a National Thoroughbred Racing Association poll. (I could be wrong, but I get the sense that the respondents are towing the company line, trying to build some enthusiasm momentum for the possibility of a Triple Crown.)

It's possible, writes Andrew Beyer of the Washington Post. " It would be natural to suspect that Animal Kingdom's victory might be another Kentucky Derby aberration," he says, "[y]et an examination of the race indicates that his performance was legitimate."

No, writes Ray Kerrison of the New York Post. He spoke to a horse racing expert who told him that, for at least two reasons, he can't see Animal Kingdom winning the Preakness.

We will get some answers on Saturday.

When the Bucks Didn't Stop

---

---

With the exception of the folks who live there, most people don't seem to be paying much attention to the 40th anniversary of Milwaukee's only NBA championship.

But it's worth thinking about as the NBA careens toward what would have been thought to be an unlikely championship series when the season began — no matter what the pairing may eventually turn out to be.

Later today, the Dallas Mavericks, who have had all week to savor a four–game sweep of the two–time defending champion Lakers in the second round, will learn whether they will face Oklahoma City (formerly the Seattle SuperSonics) or Memphis (originally a 1995 expansion team) in the Western finals.

Those three franchises have precisely one title between them — and, if Memphis defeats Oklahoma City today, it will be certain that the representative of the Lakers' conference will be seeking its first league championship.

The same can't be said of the championship series in the East that is slated to begin tonight after the Oklahoma City–Memphis game concludes. Both of the teams in that series — Miami and Chicago — have won NBA titles. Miami beat Dallas five years ago, and, as for Chicago, well, surely you remember the Bulls' dominance of the 1990s.

(I don't really have to recite the story of Michael Jordan for you, do I?)

I'm not a devoted follower of the NBA. In fact, I seldom get interested in professional basketball until things get to this stage. So I could be all wrong about this. But my guess is that the winner of the East is going to be the favorite heading into the championship series, no matter who wins the West.

To mildly misquote a phrase from Bob Dylan, though, I would not feel so overwhelmed. There might be some good karma for the winner of the West — especially if it turns out to be Dallas.

Forty years ago this spring, the Milwaukee Bucks (who had only been in existence for three years) won their first and only NBA title.

Many things were different then. The NBA, like all professional sports leagues, was much smaller; so, too, was its playoff field.

Kareem Abdul–Jabbar was on that Milwaukee team. But, although practically no one ever mentions it anymore, that wasn't his name at the time.

In the 1970–1971 season, he had not yet converted to Islam — and he was still known by the name he played under at UCLA — Lew Alcindor. He was definitely a dominant player, just as he had been in college, and he won Rookie of the Year the season before when he led the Bucks to a 29–win turnaround (the most impressive in league history to that point) and nearly took them to the NBA Finals.

The Bucks won it all the following season, but I always felt they did so not because of Alcindor but because they acquired Oscar Robertson — and took some of the pressure off Alcindor.

I was in elementary school that spring. There were few hockey or basketball teams in my part of the country in those days. Baseball (particularly the St. Louis Cardinals) usually grabbed everyone's attention until the football teams began their conditioning drills for the fall.

That spring, though, all eyes in my little town were on the NBA and Lew Alcindor. My memory of that time is that he drew most of the attention — and that was as it should be, I suppose. He did win the MVP award for the championship series.

But what so many people forget is how Robertson — long before the three–point shot — piled up more than 20 points in the first half of Game 4 and staked Milwaukee to a lead over Baltimore that it never relinquished.

Afterward, the Milwaukee coach said Robertson had been "unbelievable" on that day, and he had been.

---

---

No one could have matched Willis Reed's gutsy performance in Game 7 of the previous year's final series — but Robertson came close, clearly finishing off the Bullets that day.

The game, as I remember, was all but over by halftime. The second half was a mere formality.

Remember what I said about that karma stuff and the Dallas Mavericks? Well, I was thinking about the fact that, 40 years ago, the Bucks had to beat the Lakers to get to the NBA Finals.

Dallas has already topped the '71 Bucks with its victory over L.A. The Mavericks swept the Lakers in four games; the Bucks went 4–1 against the Lakers (but they did have to face Wilt Chamberlain).

In those days, the Lakers hadn't won an NBA title since long before they left Minneapolis in the early 1960s. They were considered competitive but hardly formidable, always a bridesmaid but never a bride.

They certainly didn't carry the aura of a two–time defending champion.

Perhaps their victory over the Lakers will propel the Mavs to their first NBA title — just as it did for the Bucks 40 years ago.

And Now For The Really Hard Part ...

---

---

Did you watch the Kentucky Derby yesterday?

Animal Kingdom was the surprise winner.

Well, I say "surprise" — but, in fact, everyone was saying this was the most wide–open Derby in a long time. I saw a comment from one trainer prior to the race who said that nearly all of the 19 horses had at least a shot at winning the race. Only one or two could be considered legitimate upsets, he said.

I don't know if he considered Animal Kingdom to be one of them, but it is true that it has been, as Alicia Wincze Hughes writes for the Lexington Herald–Leader, an "unpredictable" time for 3–year–olds.

Consequently, she just might be right when she says the 20–1 shot was the "perfect specimen" to seize the moment in the Kentucky Derby.

I didn't hear much about Animal Kingdom before the race. Most of the attention was on the other horses. That was to be expected, I guess. He didn't have a very impressive resume.

But I expect to hear a lot about Animal Kingdom in the next two weeks. His days of relative anonymity are over.

For those who follow horse racing to any extent, this may be the most intriguing time of the year. The legendary Triple Crown is out there to be won, and the Preakness is the next jewel.

The Triple Crown hangs in the horizon like something of a mirage, as it always does for the Kentucky Derby winner. The picture becomes a bit clearer if the Derby winner also wins in Baltimore two weeks later — but that is no guarantee of eventual success in the Belmont in June as many of the jockeys who rode Kentucky Derby winners in the last 33 years could tell you.

This is the hard part for Animal Kingdom. The weight of horse racing history hangs heavier with each passing year.

Since Affirmed claimed the 1978 Triple Crown, about two–thirds of the Kentucky Derby winners have come up short in the Preakness. In those years, horse racing's Triple Crown hype has been short lived.

And, even when they have won the second jewel of the Triple Crown, even when they have looked like foregone conclusions in the Belmont, it hasn't worked out that way.

Now it is Animal Kingdom's turn. Can he do what so many others have failed to do? This is the longest drought between Triple Crown winners, but the truth is that it has always been an elusive achievement. Between 1919 and 1978, only 11 horses won the Triple Crown.

Mark Beech of Sports Illustrated seems to think it is possible this year. Yes, he agrees, Animal Kingdom was an unknown quantity before yesterday's race — but don't underestimate him.

He's been improving in every start, Beech writes, and he is "modestly bred, with the pedigree of a turf runner, which in plain English means he should be able to run all day long."

Time will tell.

Some Pre-Derby Thoughts

---

The Kentucky Derby inspired the late Dan Fogelberg
to compose "Run For The Roses" 30 years ago.

---

In about six hours, the 137th Kentucky Derby will be run at Churchill Downs.

The Derby has been called "The Greatest Two Minutes in Sports" and "The Fastest Two Minutes in Sports."

But some years — especially, it seems, this year — deciding which one to support — or, more to the point for many, which one is worthy of a wager — is much more time consuming.

I've been scouring the internet this morning, and I haven't found a consensus yet.

Earlier in the week, there seemed to be a modest consensus building that Uncle Mo was a potential winner. But he was scratched yesterday.

But even when Uncle Mo was scratched, that did not eliminate the early favorite. That was Dialed In — and Alex Brown of the New York Times says he looks good to go today.

"[I]f he is your pick," writes Brown, "then he certainly looks ready to run a great race."

Jennie Rees writes, in the Louisville (Ky.) Courier–Journal that it is more difficult to predict the outcome of this year's race than ever.

In the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Johnny Love writes that he prefers "multiple bets" when you have a field as large as the one that is typical of the Derby — and this year's Derby (assuming there are no more scratches) has 19 entrants.

Love likes deep closer Nehro — but, if the track is sloppy, he prefers pacesetter Soldat. (Incidentally, the latest weather forecast I have seen calls for a 50% chance of rain and temperatures in the upper 60s.)

He says he likes Dialed In. "Just don't like him as [the] favorite."

Pia Catton writes in the Wall Street Journal that "[s]ince there's no easy, clear favorite, this is the sort of year that those of us who consider ourselves once–a–year railbirds need to do some actual research. If you're not careful, this can become a life–warping vortex of hours vaporized on the Internet."

It's an "impossibly tough decision," says the headline in the Journal, but, confides Catton, "I love the gutsiness of Mucho Macho Man."

Catton openly concedes a preference to see Archarcharch win. Archarcharch showed a "burst of speed" in the Arkansas Derby, but "[m]aybe he can't sustain it for the 10 furlongs," Catton frets. "Maybe he'll get boxed in."

Gene Menez of Sports Illustrated doesn't hesitate to say that Archarcharch is one of the best bets in today's Derby field.

But Menez also advises would–be gamblers to "Pick a name out of a hat. Close your eyes and point. Or better yet, go by colors, numbers and names. Any method of handicapping ... is just about as good as any other."

They've all got their drawbacks.

Brad Telias of The Sporting News says today's race became "an even more wide–open affair" with Uncle Mo's withdrawal.

Uncle Mo's departure, in other words, did not muddy up this field, regardless of whether it rains today or not. It was already muddy.

And that, says Tim Layden in Sports Illustrated, is bad news for everyone.

"What's good is greatness," Layden writes. "When there is greatness, that opens the door to both historic achievement and earth–shaking upsets. Wide open means mediocre and everybody here knows it, even if nobody contesting the race is saying it."

I suppose that makes it clear what the real challenge is.

It isn't winning today's Derby — although doing so will be an important achievement.

The challenge will be whether the winner of today's race can rise above expectations, above the level of mediocre to the rarified air of contender for the first Triple Crown in 33 years.

The Say Hey Kid Turns 80

---

---

When I was a kid, there was a raging debate among baseball fans.

Who would be the first to surpass Babe Ruth on the all–time home run list, Hank Aaron or Willie Mays?

My money was always on Willie, and he got a considerable jump on the somewhat plodding but steady Aaron early in their careers.

I always felt Mays was more charismatic, and I guess I gravitated to him because of that in those days ... but Aaron caught up with him and passed him on the home run list. I don't remember which one made it to 600 homers first, but Aaron went on to exceed Ruth's career total (which Mays never did) and become the all–time home run champion for the next three decades.

Even so, Mays left his mark — many of them — on major league baseball:

• Nearly four decades after he retired, only three men have hit more home runs in their careers than Mays — and only one played his entire career after Mays left the scene.


• And none of those guys ever hit four home runs in a game — which Mays did 50 years ago last weekend in a game against Aaron's Milwaukee Braves.


• Only half a dozen players have scored more runs than Mays. His closest competition among active players is Alex Rodriguez, who needs to score more than 250 times to equal Mays.


• Rodriguez may well outscore Mays before his career is over. If he does, it seems to be a cinch that he will pass Mays on the all–time RBI list. He trails Mays by fewer than 50 in that category — and, if he does pass him, he will be in the all–time Top 10.


• Mays led the National League in batting average once and finished as the runnerup three times.


• Only 10 players have more career base hits than Mays — and his most serious competition among active players, Derek Jeter, needs more than 300 hits to pass him.


• He was the first major league baseball player to hit 30 home runs before the All–Star break — an achievement that became much more commonplace during the steroids era.

Anyway, as hard as it is to believe, Mays is 80 years old today.

I guess it shouldn't be so hard to believe. And it isn't, really. I mean, I know when he retired, and I know when he was born.

It's just hard to accept that so much time has gone by since he graced the baseball fields of America.

Monarchos' Run for the Roses

---

---

I remember, when I was a young boy, watching Secretariat's remarkable Kentucky Derby victory in 1973.

Actually, all of Secretariat's races were remarkable that spring and early summer, and I guess it would be hard to single out any one of his triumphs en route to the Triple Crown. They were all special.

Secretariat truly did some amazing things in 1973. On the afternoon that he won the Belmont Stakes (the third and final jewel in the Triple Crown), he won by an incredible 31 lengths. That was a record, but, to be fair, it was accomplished against only a handful of horses, and none was close to being Secretariat's equal.

He went from last to first on the first turn of the Preakness Stakes (the second jewel of the Triple Crown) and wound up winning by 2½ lengths.

But 38 years ago at Churchill Downs, running in what has long been called the "Fastest Two Minutes in Sports," Secretariat did something no other horse had ever done before. He finished it in less than two minutes (1:59 2/5, to be exact) — and he ran each quarter–mile faster than the one he had just completed.

---

---

(Here's some little–known trivia for you. Secretariat wasn't the only horse to run the Derby in under two minutes that afternoon. Runnerup Sham was 2/5 of a second behind.)

I never saw a horse like Secretariat — before or since. There may have been one that was almost as good — but that was before my time.

And I never thought I would see that performance in the Derby duplicated. But 10 years ago today, I saw another horse break the two–minute barrier at Churchill Downs.

His name was Monarchos, and he was ridden by Jorge F. Chavez. I can't say I remember what the final odds were in the 2001 Kentucky Derby (I've never paid close attention to the odds in a horse race unless I had a wager on it), but I gather that Monarchos was something of a longshot. He paid $23.00, $11.80 and $8.80. The place horse, Invisible Ink, must have been an even longer shot. He paid $46.60 and $21.20.

That made for some really astonishing payoffs in the exotic wagers that were available.

Exotic wagers often post some eye–popping payoffs, even when the odds on the horses are relatively low, but those payoffs in 2001 were really unusual. A $2 exacta ticket with those two horses on it paid $1,229. A $2 trifecta ticket with those two horses and the show horse, Congaree, paid $12,238.40. And a $1 superfecta ticket, with those three plus the fourth–place finisher, Thunder Blitz, paid $62,986.90.

May 5, 2001, was a great day to bet on longshots.

Last I heard, Monarchos was recovering from colic surgery.

And the outlook is good — for Monarchos, that is.

Not necessarily for anyone who hopes to see that two–minute barrier broken again at Churchill Downs on Saturday — although stranger things have happened.

The Death of Our 'Enry

---

---

Henry Cooper has died at the age of 76.

Most people may not remember Cooper, a former boxer from England. There probably isn't much reason to remember him, I suppose, but nearly 48 years ago, he fought Muhammad Ali (then known as Cassius Clay) and did something that few men did during Ali's career.

Cooper knocked him down.

It wasn't the kind of knockdown you probably imagine when you hear that. The men weren't in the middle of the ring when it happened, and Ali didn't go down like a bag of wet cement; rather, they were near the ropes, and Ali's arm got snagged in them, keeping him from falling to the canvas, where his head might well have struck the boards concealed beneath.

If that had happened, it is easy to imagine that Ali might have been knocked out — and Cooper (known affectionately as "Our 'Enry" in the United Kingdom) might have won. The history of heavyweight boxing would have been changed forever.

Ali's next fight was against the heavyweight champ, Sonny Liston. But it might have been Cooper instead.

Ali was spared that because his arm got caught in the rope and held him up as the fourth round came to an end. He was woozy, though, and his trainer, Angelo Dundee, used smelling salts to revive him.

The use of smelling salts was in violation of existing rules, but it wasn't the only questionable tactic Dundee used on that occasion. He also made a tear in one of Ali's gloves and told the referee that new gloves were needed, which further delayed resumption of the bout.

By the time the fighters returned to the ring, Ali had shaken off the fog and was able to concentrate on open cuts on Cooper's face. Before long, blood was streaming down his face like perspiration. Cooper was leading on the judges' scorecards, but the referee nevertheless had to stop the fight and award the decision to Ali.

I've only seen that fight on film — and I never saw it until I was an adult — but I remember seeing pictures of Cooper's blood–streaked face in boxing magazines when I was a child. I found the image very disturbing.

I found it even more disturbing later in life when I saw Dundee being interviewed about the fight, and he readily admitted to both offenses. He seemed proud of what he had done — and I suppose he was. He had kept a young boxing prospect on his path of destiny.

However, Cooper did have a lasting impact on the sport. Spare gloves were required at ringside, but he couldn't make the use of smelling salts illegal. It was illegal already. It just wasn't rigidly enforced on that evening in 1963.

The NFL Draft

The 2011 NFL Draft is in the books now, and I have mixed emotions.

Back in February, the Green Bay Packers defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Super Bowl.

I feel it is necessary to remind you of that because it really seems to me that everything that has happened since that day — or, more accurately, since the imposition of the lockout in March — has felt like the NFL was just going through the motions.

I felt that way when the NFL's 2011 preseason and regular season schedules were announced.

And I felt that way when the draft was conducted over the past three days.

OK, I get that these are the things that are part of the NFL's routine business. College athletes are drafted into the NFL every year, and schedules are announced every year.

And everyone speculates on what kind of impact each will have on the ultimate outcome of the season.

Still, I just can't shake the thought that 2011 will not be a business–as–usual kind of year for pro football.

Nevertheless, if the unexpected does happen and the NFL plays the 2011 schedule, I can't help wondering what kind of difference the draftees will make.

Other folks are wondering the same thing today:

• Nate Davis of USA Today has a general list of the winners and losers in the draft.
  
  And the first one wasn't even a draftee this year. It was veteran quarterback Carson Palmer — not the TCU quarterback who was chosen as his heir apparent.


• As Davis observed, seven quarterbacks were taken in the first round, tying a record. You'd think, on the basis of that alone, that the teams with pressing QB issues addressed them, wouldn't you?
  
  And yet, as Gregg Rosenthal writes for NBC Sports, eight teams still have significant quarterback issues to resolve.
  
  The position, Rosenthal concludes, remains "a seller's market."


• At NFL.com, Vic Carucci lists five players he thinks will have immediate impacts on their teams' fortunes.


• And Pete Prisco of CBS Sports says Tampa Bay, Houston and the New York Giants had "A" grade drafts.

But Prisco also points out that "[g]rading a draft the day it's completed is a challenge. It's all just speculative."

Indeed it is. Some athletes have risen to the occasion and made the transition from the college level to the pro level, and some have been so exceptional at it that they have been enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame when their playing days were over.

But some athletes fall short of expectations — and that is why most of the sports writers I have known would rather not revisit what they wrote about a given draft a few years after the fact.

They know that much of their speculation already has been proven, by the passage of time, to be wrong.

A good example is the #1 pick in this year's draft, Cam Newton of Auburn.

Like Reggie Bush a few years ago, Newton won the Heisman Trophy. And anyone who saw him play this year knows he possesses many gifts that should make him a valuable commodity in the NFL.

But you never know.

Newton could be sidetracked, like Bush, by a collegiate scandal. Or he just might not live up to the hype.

In pro football, you measure the difference between the great and the near great in inches.

And it's still possible that we may measure the distance between the most recent Super Bowl and the next regular season in years, not months.

The Derby Draws Nigh

The 137th Kentucky Derby will be run a week from today, and no clear favorite is drawing the media attention — yet.

That's right. The first jewel in the Triple Crown will be awarded to someone in seven days, and we have no real idea who it might be.

It's been more than 30 years since a horse won the Triple Crown. That's the longest dry spell since the Triple Crown came into existence. The last time a horse won the Triple Crown, it was almost routine. It was the third time it had happened in six years, and most people who witnessed it — either in person or on TV — probably expected to see it again.

I know I did.

In many years, the betting public has had a pretty good idea which horse was likely to win the first jewel. A few times, it has seemed to be preordained.

But "[t]his is not one of those years," writes Kevin Van Valkenburg in the Chicago Tribune. "In fact, if you have $2 and a hunch, you might have just as good a shot as the experts ... even if you barely know the difference between a furlong, a furlough and a fur coat."

It is anybody's race, agrees Beth Harris for Associated Press.

"I have been watching the Kentucky Derby avidly for almost 30 years," says T.O. Whenham at Doc's Sports Service. "In that time I don't remember seeing a class as confounding and underwhelming as this one."

When it is like that, gamblers look for anything that will give them an edge, and Richard Linihan of the Tulsa World provides a few "things you may need to know" in pursuit of such an edge.

My guess right now is that a consensus of sorts will begin to form in the coming days as the horses go through their workouts and the observers assess what they have seen.

It probably won't be as wide open next Saturday as it appears today.

But we shall see.

Grete Waitz Dies

---

---

I've heard Grete Waitz called the greatest women's marathoner ever.

That would be a tough point to argue. Waitz won nine New York City Marathons — more than anyone else, male or female.

In a way, it seems that someone who is the best at something, whatever it may be, ought to be immune from death. Of course, that isn't so.

Waitz died of cancer at the age of 57 in her native Norway today, and that really (as a fellow — albeit fictional — runner said) is about all I have to say about that.

I keep thinking that there must be something profound to be said on the occasion of her death, some lesson to be learned.

But there isn't — except that anyone who ever saw Waitz run, with that long graceful stride of hers, will never forget her.

She set the standard for marathoners. Rest in peace.