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.

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?

Seattle Slew Was Special

---

---

I was very disappointed the other day when I'll Have Another was scratched from the Belmont Stakes, guaranteeing that the drought between Triple Crown winners would go on another year.

But today is a Triple Crown anniversary that may offer the tiniest bit of hope for horse racing enthusiasts that it may end soon.

Seattle Slew capped the 1977 Triple Crown race series 35 years ago today with a four–length win in the Belmont Stakes.

There was no doubt about it. Seattle Slew was a great horse, so great that Blood Horse magazine ranked him ninth in its list of the Top 100 horses of the 20th century — ahead of all but two of the other Triple Crown winners.

Seattle Slew was the first horse to win the Triple Crown while undefeated, and he remains the only horse to accomplish that feat.

But sometimes he seems to get overlooked, perhaps because he came along in a decade that had two other Triple Crown winners — and might well have had more. After all, Canonero II (1971) and Spectacular Bid (1979) both went into the Belmont Stakes with a chance to win a Triple Crown but came up short.

Obviously, Seattle Slew did not come up short in the Belmont.

It would have been wonderful if we could have seen a Triple Crown winner this year. The Triple Crown has always been a rare achievement. The horse that ends the currently 34–year drought since the last one — and make no mistake about it, I do believe it will end someday — may well be appreciated more than most because the wait has been so long.

If I'll Have Another had not been scratched but had lost the Belmont, racing fans probably would have had some wistful thoughts about what might have been, and there would have been a palpable sense of loss — but nothing like what descended upon the world of horse racing on Friday.

At least he would have made the attempt.

And it might have kicked off a wave of nostalgia for those '70s horses — Secretariat, Affirmed and the one that won the Triple Crown 35 years ago today, Seattle Slew.

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.

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.