|
|
COMMENTARY JUNE 2, 2008 The side effects of a Triple Crown leave me wary by Vance Hanson In the spring of 1997 this observer, having spent half his life following the Thoroughbred sport as a joyful spectator, finally started drawing a paycheck to do so -- a career goal finally realized. My internship as a publicity assistant at a Midwestern racetrack coincided with what would become, or so it seemed at the time, a series of disappointments not only for racing fans but the entire industry. The sweep of the Triple Crown seemed no less elusive in the spring of 1997 than it did just a few months ago. Four colts, including three that eventually made their way into the Hall of Fame, had fallen short in the 11 years following Affirmed's 1978 triumph. That was followed by eight years of virtual wilderness when only three Kentucky Derby winners out of seven who contested the Preakness managed to hit the board. I undoubtedly was not alone in believing that a Triple Crown winner was essential for the betterment of an industry suffering not only from intense competition for the gambling and entertainment dollar, but a diminished status in the nation's conscience and, more importantly, its sports pages. Thus, it was a bitter pill to swallow when, in consecutive years, Silver Charm, Real Quiet and Charismatic all fell frustratingly short of joining racing's most exclusive club. Once again, racing was relegated to an afterthought in the world of sports. To paraphrase Dinah Washington, what a difference a decade makes. In the intervening years racing's image problems have become even more acute and its likeability quotient continues to decline, even among life-long fans of my acquaintance. The difference now is that having a Triple Crown winner probably would not have much of long-term benefit on the sport. Indeed, it might cast an even brighter spotlight on one of the sport's most glaring and pernicious deficiencies. Cynics, and not a few prominent trainers, have said publicly that a horse that sweeps the Triple Crown these days would be on the next van or plane to stud after being draped with the Belmont carnations. Judging from what we've seen lately, even among colts with only two-thirds of the Triple Crown to their credit, who can disagree? The premature retirements of many of our best runners over the past several years does not appear as if it will be abated anytime soon. For convoluted reasons that defy all the economic laws I ever have ever been taught, a horse's worth, in particular those of a colt with working reproductive organs, is no longer dependent, even partially, on his potential earning power at the racetrack. The disconnect between racetrack earnings and the valuation of bloodstock leaves little incentive for horses to stay in training, leaving the industry with scraps to market as best they can to a wider viewing audience. While an early retirement might make economic sense to those who would benefit, the potential argument that "he has nothing more to prove" is a canard of the worst kind. Regardless of what his handlers might claim, there is always something more for a horse to prove beyond the first week of June in his three-year-old year. All but three of the 11 previous Triple Crown winners raced beyond age three. Gallant Fox was retired at the end of his three-year-old campaign, perhaps in keeping with owner William Woodward's philosophy, though inadequate Depression-era purses might have been a factor as well. Count Fleet severely injured himself during his Belmont romp, while Secretariat was syndicated long before his Triple Crown score to help pay the taxes on the estate of his late breeder. In every other instance, Triple Crown winners continued to race and the sport was better for it. Secretariat would still be remembered for three extraordinary performances had he not raced after the Belmont. Because he did race we can say, definitively, that he was the best horse to race that year. Not only did he prove his superiority over an accomplished group of older horses in the Marlboro Cup, he also leant weight to the argument he might have been the best American-based turf runner ever following decisive victories in the Man o' War S. (G1) and Canadian International (Can-G2). The exploits at age four of both Seattle Slew and Affirmed also show that the reputation of a Triple Crown winner, if not his material value, can be enhanced by racing more. For a Triple Crown sweep to be of any long-term benefit to the sport, ensuring that the winner continue to race, at least through the end of its three-year-old season, would only be a first step. The second, arguably more elusive than winning the Triple Crown itself, is for racing to actually be embraced and respected by the mainstream sports media, though at every turn it appears they are reluctant to do either. The high bar they continue to set seems less scalable than ever before. It's somewhat amusing, and almost always irritating, to listen to mainstream sports reporters, columnists and pundits, particularly those of the ESPN variety, opine every spring that racing needs a Triple Crown winner to become "relevant" again, the definition of which never seems to be provided. I'm almost certain, however, that their definition of relevance would not translate into crowds of 30,000 at Belmont Park every Saturday, or that said reporters would be on the phone immediately securing their credentials for the Suburban H. (G1), Arlington Million (G1) or any other race of long-standing importance they routinely ignore. It's the ultimate in irony that a media cabal that expounds that racing must consistently produce Triple Crown winners in order to have relevancy is the same group that, earlier this decade, spent over a year glorifying a champion of another era -- Seabiscuit -- who never ran in a Triple Crown race. A glance at the Racing Hall of Fame roster finds dozens of colts and geldings who never won the Triple Crown but nonetheless attained the sport's ultimate distinction. Many of our most revered champions never caught a whiff of the hoopla surrounding any of America's three classics, but that fact is seemingly too much for the thrice-a-year racetrack press box visitor to absorb. We are now confronted with a possibility of the first Triple Crown sweep in 30 years. A decade ago, I would have been truly excited about the possibility of a horse like Big Brown (Boundary), who seems lengths ahead of his peers, achieving such a rare distinction. Now I find myself wondering what it would all be for if he were to achieve it. The scent of an early retirement permeates the air. The lucrative stud deal is in place; the quarter-cracks have conveniently recurred and continue to be a nuisance; and a blustery conditioner says he is leaving it up to the owners to call the shots after the Belmont, which in today's era is rarely an encouraging sign. On the other end we have a patronizing mainstream sports media ready to write yet another obituary for the sport because a) there will be no Triple Crown winner; b) the Triple Crown winner is being whisked off to stud; or c) anything that occurs outside the domain of the Triple Crown is not really germane and does not fit into the defined parameters of general interest they have arbitrarily set for horse racing. The possibility exists that a rival will come to the fore in the Belmont and gives Big Brown a run for his money. A more likely proposition is that Big Brown will perform every bit as well as he did in Louisville and Baltimore, thus ending a record dry spell. Indeed, the Belmont might end up being farcical in more ways than one.
 Send this article to a friend
|
|
