Triple Crown Schedule Too Much?

Everyone from Penny Chenery to Bobby Frankel has an opinion on the tradition and possible changes to the Triple Crown schedule. Would a change help or hinder the horses?

Only eleven thoroughbreds in history have done it. Ten since 1979 have been a Belmont Stakes win away; twenty-four have won two of the three.

Of course, it's American horse racing's three-race event, the Triple Crown. There is much opinion on its difficulty, and worthy controversy on the possibility of changing its schedule to expand the timeframe in which it is run, and/or to reduce the mileage of each race.

As is, it remains as one of the most difficult sporting events to sweep; rather like trying to repeat as NCAA champions, or to win back-to-back World Series championships.

Some trainers, like Barclay Tagg, think the scheduling for the three-year-old participants, many of whom are just finding their wings, is too tough. Traditionalists won't hear of changing the format. Plenty of astericks would be needed to track winners in a new format.

Training and schooling of three-year-olds would take on different dimensions. Trainers might opt to schedule a few more races for their charges with the classics spread out.

Fans, myself included, would be split in their opinions of what constituted a great thoroughbred against those who got a break in scheduling. Would it make the eleven who did it the harder, traditional way untouchably the greatest runners of all time?

Could we ever compare a winner of a new schedule with the first eleven Triple Crown champions? We have trouble now comparing Man o' War's era with Secretariat's. Was Secretariat greater because he won those three races in record times? Or is Man o' War better because he won 20 of 21 starts?

If we can't get that settled, how would we settle a change of format in the Sport of Kings? Would such a change be beneficial to the health of the thoroughbreds?

Many good runners gas in the Belmont Stakes. Others lose before they start in the grinding training required to prepare for the present schedule.

Having watched the Triple Crown races all my life in their present format, I'm slanted toward leaving them alone. But a shorter Belmont sure would have helped a number of champions who won the first two legs of the triple. On the other hand, that's why the Belmont is referred to as "a test of a champion".

Change is good, sometimes. One thing we know for sure about change - it changes.