The Other Side
Yesterday's edition laid out the data, which strongly makes the case for change. Many horsemen are on record with their feelings — Brad Cox said he's "all for moving it," Chad Brown predicted "it is gonna change, certainly before my career is over," Mark Glatt said "tradition is tradition, but we live in a different world," and Bill Mott told Churchill Downs publicity that "nobody talks about the Preakness." NBC's Randy Moss called the Triple Crown "in intensive care."
Today we hear from the other side — two trainers who ran a horse through multiple legs of the Triple Crown and came out the other side with the horse ready to do more great things.
Graham Motion
Graham Motion trained Animal Kingdom through all three legs in 2011. He won the Derby, ran second in the Preakness, and was sixth in the Belmont. In a public exchange on Twitter this week, Motion pushed back on the idea that horsemen universally want the spacing changed.
"I disagree, it's meant to be hard. I never thought twice about it, horse was great going into it."
He added: "I'm probably crazy but I actually enjoyed the challenge and my horse was doing great so I never thought twice about it. And I am definitely not questioning Cherie or Bill, they are both fantastic trainers. I do think it would be a shame if the spacing becomes too great because that is part of the challenge and what keeps people's attention."
He concluded with a sweet line: "There was nothing cooler than coming to Pimlico with the Derby winner."
Even Motion concedes the ground may be shifting: "I'm sure it's going to change at some point."
Michael McCarthy
Michael McCarthy trained Journalism through all three legs just last year — second in the Derby, first in the Preakness in dramatic fashion, then second again in the Belmont. Journalism was so bothered by these exertions that he came back to win the Haskell six weeks later.
"I like the Kentucky Derby, two weeks Preakness, three weeks Belmont. I think it's meant to be tough. Obtaining those three races puts you in rarefied air."
On Journalism specifically: "Within 48 hours after the Kentucky Derby, I could not tell the difference between a horse that had run a mile and a quarter and not run a mile and a quarter. He was kind of a throwback type of a horse. He had the physical attributes and the constitution to handle three races in five weeks."
The simplest version: "We let him take us."
McCarthy is honest about the limits of his experience: "A sample of one is what I have. But that sample of one is a lot more than some of the other people that you'll interview."
What I Took Away
I thought it interesting that both Motion and McCarthy cited the "it's meant to be hard" argument that elsewhere I have noted as a canard, and it really made me think. When pressed, both men conceded my point that having most of the best three-year-olds in all three legs might make it harder to win, and McCarthy also brought up the idea that a later-blooming colt could be a fresh threat in the Belmont come summer. But I also came to understand something about their way of looking at the world — for a trainer, especially a modern one, that challenge of having the right horse who can do the three races in five weeks is part of the appeal. I'll dive deeper into this idea and what I ultimately make of it in my next and final piece on this topic.
As for McCarthy, he's not opposed to change on principle: "If the Triple Crown changes and it's three races eight weeks apart or ten weeks apart, am I going to stop participating because of that? Absolutely not."
Where They Agree
The horse has to tell you. Motion's horse was great going in. McCarthy's horse was indistinguishable from a fresh horse 48 hours after the Derby. DeVaux's horse — with documented minor heel issues along the trail to the Derby — apparently wasn't giving her those signals. And Mott's two horses? He didn't even want to ask the question.