HORSE RACING : A Dreary Triple Crown Raises Questions

The 1993 Triple Crown series left a bad taste in just about everybody’s mouth.

Union City shattered a leg during the Preakness and had to be destroyed. Prairie Bayou suffered a similar fate in the Belmont Stakes.

Because Prairie Bayou failed to cross the finish line, the $1 million bonus for the best overall performance in the series went to the unheroic Sea Hero, who won the Kentucky Derby, finished fifth in the Preakness and seventh in the Belmont.

These dreary events have prompted intense scrutiny of America’s most important horse races. Many journalists decried the rules and the very concept of the Triple Crown Challenge, which requires a horse to finish each of the three races to be eligible for its $1 million bonus. But other critics have suggested even more profound changes.

Trainer Wayne Lukas advocates changing the distances of the races: Shorten the Derby to 1 1/8 miles; keep the Preakness at 1 3/16 miles; shorten the Belmont to 1 1/4 miles. A more widespread idea is to alter the timing of the series, which now requires relatively unseasoned 3-year-olds to run three grueling races in a five-week period. Daily Racing Form columnist Alan Shuback wrote: “Recent history is screaming at us that the current schedule needs revision. Let’s change it now before we have a repetition of this year’s carnage.”

Executives of the Triple Crown tracks have discussed the possibility of a new schedule. (One possible plan would be to run the Derby on the traditional first Saturday in May but to end the series with the Belmont on the 4th of July.) Ed Seigenfeld, executive director of Triple Crown Productions, said: “We are aware that it may be necessary to make changes. But we’re not going to react hastily because of an incredible series of events.”

The proposals to alter the Triple Crown do reflect some of the realities of modern racing. Lukas’s idea about shortening the distances might sound like heresy, but the distance of the Belmont is indeed an anachronism; it is the last significant 1 1/2-mile dirt race in the United States. And the grueling schedule of the Triple Crown is a throwback to the era when American thoroughbreds were tougher and were campaigned harder. Nowadays trainers like to bring a horse to a major race “fresh”--with ample rest since his previous start.

The Triple Crown is exceptionally demanding and difficult--but that’s what it is supposed to be. There are no tests in horse racing, and few in any sport, that are so reliable as a measurement of excellence. One might think that in a weak year a moderately talented animal might be able to get lucky and dominate his rivals over a five-week period. But this never happens. The four horses who have swept the series in the last 45 years--Citation, Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed--ran among the very best of all time.

The Triple Crown is one of those rare events--like the Masters or the Boston Marathon--that have long continuity and provide contemporary athletes with pretty much the same challenge as the greats of the past. Sea Hero is asked to face the same test that Secretariat did. Would the Boston Marathon shorten its distance or Augusta National slow its greens because the athletes weren’t performing well enough?

The demands of the Derby, Preakness and Belmont used to be a fitting showcase for the virtues of the American thoroughbred. In contrast to the pampered racehorses of Europe, who ran sparingly and were retired hastily, U.S. horses were tough and durable. Now they are not. There’s nothing wrong with the Triple Crown; what’s wrong is the decline in the American thoroughbred’s quality.

Many experts maintain that the breeding industry went astray in the 1980s, when it was so preoccupied by selling well-bred yearlings for lofty prices that it ceased to plan matings designed to produce tough, durable racehorses. Other critics argue that the increased reliance on so-called “permissive medications” has generally weakened horses in this country.

Nevertheless, the shortcomings of contemporary horses do not constitute a sound argument for altering the Triple Crown. The deaths of two runners in this year’s races are an aberration, a fluke. It had been 35 years since the last time a breakdown led to a horse’s death in a Triple Crown race. This three-race series may be grueling, but it’s not going to produce carnage, as some hyperbolic commentators may suggest, and it would be hasty to alter one of the sport’s great institutions on the basis of such a fear.