Belmont Isn’t the One That Really Counts

If you’re going to win one horse race in your life, make it the Kentucky Derby. If you’re going to win one horse race of the Triple Crown, make it the Kentucky Derby.

If you’re going to win two horse races of the Triple Crown, make them the Derby and the Preakness.

Does Alysheba now go down in history as the horse that lost the Belmont? I would think not. Not any more than Northern Dancer, Majestic Prince, Spectacular Bid, Tim Tam, Pensive or Carry Back will.

Horsemen love the Belmont. It’s 1) in New York, 2) in June, and 3) a mile and a half.

The public likes the Kentucky Derby. It’s 1) first, 2) in Kentucky, 3) romantic, nostalgic, as much a part of Americana as Daniel Boone or Stephen Foster.

The public doesn’t really give a hoot about the Travers, the Suburban Handicap, Jerome, Withers or the Jockey Gold Cup. The Jersey Derby doesn’t quite cut it--the Kentucky it ain’t. And the Belmont they pay attention to only if a Kentucky Derby winner is still “alive” in it, i.e., he has also won the Preakness.

The public considers it faintly unsporting for a type to hold a horse out of the first two legs of the Triple Crown and save him up to throw at tiring horses in the Belmont. If he’s too chicken to take on the first two contests, he shouldn’t be allowed in the third. It’s like joining a marathon at Mile 20 or a channel swim in sight of shore.

But horsemen being horsemen, an unsentimental lot when it comes to something as serious as racing--that’s racing, as in money--they tend to care less about the sporting aspects than the economic. The trick in race training is never to go into a game or bet the hand unless you think you have all the aces.

This is no fun. But it was in crafty recognition of this concept that forces began to move in over the last few years to threaten the integrity of the Triple Crown. The Jersey Derby, no less, lured a Kentucky Derby winner--Spend a Buck--out of the Preakness with a promise of $2.6 million for winning the Kentucky, Jersey and two other races over its Garden State track.

This roll of the dice sent a chill over the Triple Crown entrepreneurs, who previously had acted independently of each other. They didn’t want to see the Triple Crown become the Jersey Derby, Cherry Hill Mile and Garden State Stakes, so they formed a syndicate and put up $5 million for anyone who could win the traditional Triple Crown.

They were on solid ground there. Since the Triple Crown was begun in 1919, winners average out to one every decade, and at one time racing went 25 years between them.

So, the syndicate conjured up a point system that would coax owners not only to enter but to persevere in the three races and thus preserve the public interest.

That’s the thing that needs some fine-tuning. The formula they arrived at provided for the $5 million to the Triple Crown winner but also a bonus to whichever horse posted the best overall record in the three races.

The concept is not new. Auto racing has its champions based on point systems for order of finish. Tennis has something similar. So has golf.

The trouble with all of these creations is that the promoters think the public is impressed with consistency. It isn’t. The public prefers precocity. Brilliance. Workaday competency is for paperhangers. You don’t pay to see efficiency, you pay to see brilliance.

The trouble with the point system soon became apparent. The planners drew up a 5 for a victory, 3 for a second and 1 for a third.

So, this year, you had the specter of a horse winning two of the three races but finishing second in the point system--and losing the million dollars posted--to the horse that won only one of the three races.

The system is flawed. A horse that wins none of the Triple Crown races could conceivably win the million-dollar bonus--maybe with only two seconds.

Reckoning virtuosity by any yardstick other than victories, is a self-defeating exercise, a souring experience. The following news story is hardly inspiring:

“By finishing fifth in Sunday’s Grand Prix, Leadfoot Lonergan won the Ultra driving championship for 1987 although he finished two laps down to the winner, Wolfgang Von Schlepp.”

In golf, you have the galling instances of a player taking the money-winning title for the year without winning any tournaments. It is a sport that encourages players sometimes to settle for nice safe money-winning thirds and fourths in closing rounds, rather than on exciting chance-taking shots that could end up with catastrophic consequences for failure.

Finishing second should never end up more advantageous than finishing first. As the British admiral said to Queen Victoria when the United States won the first America’s Cup and she wanted to know who had finished second: “Your Majesty, there is no second.”

Unfortunately, under a point system, there is. Finishing first two out of three times should amass more points than finishing second two out of three. Finishing first should be worth more than two points more than finishing second.

But even if it isn’t, Alysheba won the right two races. The winner of the Belmont gets recognition only if he also won those two.