jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (6 posts)

Should a horse have to run all three legs of the Triple Crown?

  1. lions44 profile image98
    lions44posted 3 years ago

    Should a horse have to run all three legs of the Triple Crown?

    Yesterday's Belmont Stakes caused some controversy because 3 of the top finishers had not run the Derby or Preakness. This caused quite an outburst from California Chrome's owner that a horse should be required to run all three races. I agree with him. This is horse racing's premier event, like a playoff of sorts.  You should not be allowed a bye for the first two rounds.


  2. dashingscorpio profile image87
    dashingscorpioposted 3 years ago

    The only purpose for running a horse in all 3 races is to have the title "Triple Crown Winner". It also significantly increases the value of that horse's offspring. Aside from that if an owner only wants to race his/her horse in one of the races that should be (their) call.
    Their horse will not be a "Triple Crown Winner" either.

  3. dogmama58 profile image81
    dogmama58posted 3 years ago

    I agree that the horses should actually compete in all 3 races to be eligible. The first 2 races are by invitation. Owners waive those 2 off & rest their horses and then enter only the Belmont, which only requires that the owner be able to buy their way in. I think the Belmont should either also do by invitation or be dropped from the Triple Crown maybe for another venue.

  4. junkseller profile image84
    junksellerposted 3 years ago

    I'm no expert, but it seems to me that they have always been this way and that previous triple crown winners beat fresh horses.

    A requirement to run all three seems like a bad idea. It is hard on the horses and the pressure to run all three would run the risk of more injuries and that just isn't worth it. I'm not a huge horse-racing fan, but I don't want to see a triple crown winner if it meant I had to watch a bunch of horses injure themselves.

    1. lions44 profile image98
      lions44posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that it would be hard on the horses, that's why I would make it 3 or maybe 4 weeks between the races.   If the various racing associations moved to synthetic tracks, injuries would be prevented anyway.

  5. profile image0
    Grey Templesposted 3 years ago

    Yes, in order to run in the Belmont which is the last race for the triple crown all horses should have run the other two races.  What happened is a ringer horse was brought in to win the Belmont and that was just not fair as the race was fixed in my minds eye.  Horse racing is hard anyway and is worse in the fixing department than dog racing.  The winner of the Belmont was fresh and is great at running 1 1/2 miles.  I feel bad for California Chrome