Letter to the Editor: Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

At this point in time, there is no reasonable argument to be made that the Preakness should remain two weeks after the Kentucky Derby. Four winners in just the last seven years (2019-2026) have bypassed the second leg of the Triple Crown. These include Golden Tempo (2026), Sovereignty (2025), Rich Strike (2022), and Country House (2019).

How stupid do you want to get? Would you like the American Triple Crown to be a practical non-entity as with the English Triple Crown, where you are extremely lucky to have a participant in the St. Leger that also ran in the Epsom Derby?  The English Triple Crown is not a “thing” anymore.

Ignoring Kentucky Derby winners, year after year as of late, few horses that ran in the Kentucky Derby run in the Preakness. For those that participated in the Kentucky Derby and did not win, there is even less incentive for them to run in the Preakness, since they have no chance at the Triple Crown. And this year, we have near perfection: as of May 7, save for the possibility of Ocelli, not a single horse that ran in the Kentucky Derby appears to be running in the Preakness.

I could go through the history of the Triple Crown to show that there have been differences. Sir Barton ran in a mile and 3/8 (not 1/2) Belmont, and the Preakness was only 1 1/8 miles (not 1 3/8) and only four days after the Kentucky Derby. When Gallant Fox won the Triple Crown, the Preakness was 8 days before the Preakness. Heck, in 1890, a 5-year-old won the Preakness which was run as a handicap at Morris Park in the state of New York at 1 1/2 miles (the distance of the modern Belmont). If that wasn't enough, two races later on that 1890 Preakness day the Belmont Stakes was run at the same track at 1 1/4 miles.

Changes are not all relics of the past. While the Belmont has been a Saratoga ('24,'25,'26), it has been run a 1 1/4 miles and not the traditional 1 ½ miles.  By the way, when Belmont was under construction in the 1960's, for five years, 1963-1968, the Belmont was run at 1 1/2 miles at Aqueduct. So I don't want to hear anything about the need to preserve “tradition.”

“Traditionally,” the better horses ran in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness–they obviously do not anymore. You would have to be thick beyond belief to not take this new development into consideration when scheduling the Preakness. How stupid can horseracing get? The fans of the sport are sick and tired of not being listened to. The Kentucky Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont are not like other races. They should be placed one month apart, so that horses are encouraged to run in all three races, and the rest of horse racing should set their calendars around that fact.

There is a reason the old saying “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result” is said over and over again. Here's to insanity, a deaf ear, and a much less interesting Preakness.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

The author is a horseracing fan and historian