The Triple Crown’s Time for Change: Prioritizing Horse Welfare over Tradition
The echoes of Sovereignty’s Kentucky Derby victory had barely faded when the familiar question arose: would the champion head to Baltimore for the Preakness Stakes? Trainer Bill Mott’s response, while diplomatic, hinted at a growing sentiment within the horse racing community – the current Triple Crown format may no longer serve the best interests of the equine athletes.
Mott’s cautious words echoed a familiar refrain from Derby-winning trainers in recent years. The decision to run in the Preakness, a mere two weeks after the grueling Derby, hinges on the horse’s physical readiness. While acknowledging the option, Mott subtly suggested that bypassing the Preakness was a strong possibility. "It’s good to have that option," he stated. "I don’t think we’re dead set on it. I don’t think that’s the only thing we’re thinking about.”
This sentiment underscores a growing concern: the Triple Crown, in its current five-week sprint, is an increasingly demanding gauntlet for modern racehorses. The article proposes the question of whether the racing world will listen to the trainers. The trainers, time and time again, make it clear that the Triple Crown needs to be revamped.
The article’s author argues that the time has come for a reevaluation of the Triple Crown’s scheduling. While acknowledging the historical significance and tradition, the author contends that the modern racehorse is not bred or conditioned to withstand the rigors of three long races within such a short timeframe.
One of the main points being made is that the connections of a horse that wins the Kentucky Derby will do everything in their power to help them win this race. This means that these connections will do anything possible to have their horse in the best level of fitness for race day.
The issue, as the author sees it, is that the pursuit of a Triple Crown often comes at the expense of the horse’s long-term health and career. The current format prioritizes tradition over the well-being of the animals, leading to shortened careers and potential physical issues.
The defense of the current format often rests on the argument that altering the schedule would diminish the challenge and cheapen the achievement. However, the author counters that the infrequency of horses running in all three races already undermines the Triple Crown’s prestige. Moreover, the horses that do attempt the sweep often emerge from the experience worse for wear.
The article cites recent examples to bolster this argument. Mystik Dan, the 2024 Derby winner, ran in all three legs of the Triple Crown and subsequently vanished from the racing scene for several months. Mage, the 2023 victor, also ran in the Preakness but was never the same afterward, ultimately retiring after a mere two more races and a series of physical problems.
Mott himself emphasized the importance of longevity in a horse’s career. "I think over the years, people realize that spacing these horses out a little bit gives you the opportunity to make them last a little longer," he explained. "I think we’re looking at a career, you know, and you want the career to last more than five weeks."
The director of American bloodstock for Godolphin, Michael Banahan, echoed Mott’s sentiments, noting the demanding nature of the Triple Crown schedule and the toll it takes on the horses. He emphasized that the horse’s well-being would be the paramount factor in determining whether Sovereignty would run in the Preakness.
Banahan’s statement also hinted at a shift in priorities. For connections like those of Sovereignty, winning the Kentucky Derby was the primary objective. The remaining races of the season, including lucrative events like the Haskell Stakes, Travers Stakes, and Breeders’ Cup Classic, offer alternative opportunities to enhance the horse’s resume without jeopardizing its long-term health.
The author suggests a simple solution: extending the intervals between the Triple Crown races. Three weeks or a month between the Derby and Preakness, followed by another month before the Belmont Stakes, would allow horses more time to recover and prepare. While acknowledging that this change might make winning the Triple Crown even more challenging, the author argues that it would ultimately improve the quality of the competition and benefit the horses.
The author points out that the Triple Crown’s spacing is not set in stone. The schedule has evolved over time, and there is no compelling reason to adhere rigidly to the current format, especially when it demonstrably harms the horses.
The author concludes by lamenting the potential absence of Sovereignty, Journalism, and Baeza from the Preakness. A rematch between these top contenders would undoubtedly generate excitement and interest in the sport. However, if none of them participate, the author questions the Preakness’s relevance.
Ultimately, the author suggests that Mott’s potential decision to bypass the Preakness could serve as a catalyst for change. It might be the moment of clarity that horse racing needs to finally acknowledge that the current Triple Crown format is no longer in the best interests of the sport. The welfare of the horses should be the priority, even if it means sacrificing some tradition.
