Still waiting for a super horse?

A discussion on a Yahoo forum I frequent -- dubbed tb_breeding_theory -- prompted some thinking on my part.

It was suggested by one person that the breeding and racing industry goes through a roughly 30-year cycle in which we keep producing equally well-bred horses, but none of them reaches "super horse" status.

I asked myself (and others), do we really go through a 30-year cycle between "super horses?"

And I decided that I don't think so, but it might depend on how we define "super horse."

It seems to me the drought is really in Triple Crown winners. But certainly that can't be the only measure of a "super horse." I'd say Spectacular Bid was one (26-for-30 lifetime), and he lost the Triple Crown.

I'm sure nobody needs this history lesson, but the American Triple Crown was won three times in the 1970s -- Secretariat in '73, Seattle Slew in '77, and Affirmed in '78). All are undeniably "super horses" who rarely lost, and certainly took down America's most notable title; "Triple Crown winner."

The Bid had his shot in 1979.

So by that measure, we'd be looking at -- about nowadays, really -- for the next "super horse" to arrive. If we're on a 30-year cycle.

But what has racing seen since? Were there no "super horses" in the interim?

Just looking at Kentucky Derby winners, we see these examples (dated by their Derby wins):

1985 -- Spend a Buck: Surely almost nobody would consider this colt by a relatively unheralded son of Buckpasser (Buckaroo) to be a "super horse." But then again, why not? He was 10-for-15 lifetime and never finished worse than third, earning more than $4.2 million. He was a Grade 1 winner at 2 and 3, and very well might have backed up his Derby win with victory in the Preakness had his connections not skipped Pimlico for Garden State Park and the Jersey Derby, where a $2 million bonus had been established for any horse who could win two earlier stakes races there (the Cherry Hill Mile April 6 and the Garden State Stakes April 20), plus the Kentucky and Jersey derbies. ... Spend a Buck followed the money. ... Champion 3-year-old colt and Horse of the Year, Spend a Buck's connections possibly kept him from going down in history as a "super horse" by choosing the $2 million bonus over winning the Preakness (a Churchill-Pimlico double many horses have made) and then at least trying the Belmont, where I'm not sure he would have beaten Creme Fraiche (the only gelding ever to win the race), but finishing second or third would've preserved his 100 percent OTB record lifetime.

1987 -- Alysheba: Maybe going 11-8-2 for 26 starts isn't a high enough win percentage to qualify for "super horse." But he was a G1 winner 10 times, took the Derby and Preakness at 3, the Breeders' Cup Classic at 4, earned $6.6 million, and was a champion three times; 3-year-old colt, older horse and Horse of the Year.

1989 -- Sunday Silence: A lock for "super horse" status had he not lost to Easy Goer in the Belmont Stakes, this near-black son of Halo won nine of 14 (six G1s), never finished worse than second, and went on to sire the richest lifetime foal crop in world history.

That would seem to get us through the 1980s with at least several near-misses for "super horse" status.

The Derby winners were a relative dearth of super-horse candidates for several years after Sunday Silence -- Unbridled, Strike the Gold, Lil E. Tee, Sea Hero, Go For Gin, Thunder Gulch, Grindstone. But even among those (who were still undeniably pretty good racehorses) emerged two major U.S. sires in Unbridled and Thunder Gulch.

Then in 1997 we saw the beginning of a run on near-Triple Crowns, that began with Silver Charm (12-for-24 lifetime, beaten three-quarters by Touch Gold in the Belmont to lose the Triple Crown). It would be hard to argue a 6-for-20 horse is a "super horse," but had Real Quiet been a nose quicker than Victory Gallop at Belmont, he'd have been a Triple Crown winner the next year and the drought would have been broken 12 years ago. Charismatic nearly did it just one year later, finishing third despite a broken leg. War Emblem, Funny Cide and Smarty Jones gave us another three-year stretch from 2002-2004 where the first two legs were won and the Triple lost at Belmont; War Emblem stumbled at the start of his legend-defining race, Funny Cide was a credible third and Smarty Jones crushed everybody in his Belmont Stakes -- except Birdstone, who ran him down and won by about a length.

So that's six near-triples from 1997-2004. Had any of them broken through we'd be talking about half or less the Triple Crown drought we're presently suffering. And at least a couple of those horses (Silver Charm, definitely Smarty Jones) would be serious arguments for "super horse" status had they won a Belmont Stakes (and thus Triple Crown) they narrowly lost.

(Big Brown was our latest TC shot, but threw a stinker in the Belmont.)

I think Barbaro was a super horse, but regrettably we can't fully label him such. We'll never know how and why he went wrong in the Preakness, but had he run it the way he did the Derby, maybe not even a razor-sharp Bernardini would have been beating him that day. And how many rivals even would have shown up at Belmont three weeks later?

None of this takes into account horses like John Henry (39-for-86, 16 G1s, seven times champion, raced 1977-84), Cigar (19-for-33, 16 straight at one point), Zenyatta (17-for-17), Curlin (11-for-16, five G1s, $10.5 million), and Rachel Alexandra (13-for-18, three historic G1 wins vs. males), nor anyone overseas, most recently and notably Sea The Stars, who might have been the first English Triple Crown winner since Nijinsky (1970) had his connections not considered the accomplishment so unimportant as to not even try the St. Leger at 14 furlongs.

So I'd argue we've not suffered a dearth of "super horses" since the last U.S. Triple Crown was won in 1978. We've just had a lack of that one horse who could be a length (or sometimes less) faster on one day of his life (or be handled differently by his connections) to break the Triple Crown drought -- and thus to take our minds off the question, "How long has it been since we saw the last 'super horse?'"

Not Luv Gov again!

Why won't Luv Gov leave us in peace?

The Ten Most Wanted colt who I said had no business in the Preakness -- and who pretty much ran like it, placing eighth -- has officially been pointed to the Belmont Stakes. He might win and make me look the fool, but I say he doesn't belong there, either.

Luv Gov broke his maiden (at 10th asking, a term you don't hear that often about Grade 1 stakes horses) on the Kentucky Derby undercard. His name first cropped up as a Preakness entry amid the subterfuge intended to keep eventual winner Rachel Alexandra out of the race. Ahmed Zayat, owner of Pioneerof The Nile, said Marylou Whitney planned to enter a colt to "promote her stallion" (Belmont winner Birdstone, sire of Derby winner Mine That Bird) and the only colt to emerge from Whitney's string with Preakness intentions was Luv Gov. (The Whitney camp issued a blanket denial of a role in any conspiracy.)

Either Whitney and trainer D. Wayne Lukas are actually every bit as confident in this horse's ability as they say -- they were quoted as entering the Preakness feeling he "(had) a legitimate chance," also not something you hear often from the camp a 1-for-10 horse entered in a Grade 1 classic -- or else they're taking this charade two steps too far.

I just don't see how this entry adds up. Other than the truly special athletes, a horse deserves his conditions; in this case, the right to face non-winners of two when he himself has not yet won twice in his life.

Luv Gov took 10 races to break maiden. He did so impressively, closing from deep in the pack to draw off and win by 6 1/2 lengths going a mile and a sixteenth in the slop, for an 87 Beyer. But running off from maidens by 6 1/2 is a far cry from announcing your Grade 1 status unless perhaps you're a first-out 2-year-old.

The colt is improving. He had only one decent Beyer at age 2, a 73 in finishing third behind the ill-fated Stormalory in a Polytrack route at Keeneland. His other juvenile efforts earned Beyers of 39, 27, 49, 37 and (after the 73) a 30. (See his full pre-Preakness PPs here.)

He progressed considerably for Lukas after a layoff from November 2008 to March 2009, when he returned at Oaklawn Park. He was second there in two straight maiden special weight efforts, with Beyers of 83 and a regressive 74, then ran well again over Keeneland's synthetic surface in a place finish from his third 3-year-old start. Then the win at Churchill.

But an instant jump to Grade 1 races?

The Belmont actually makes more sense than the Preakness, I suppose. Whitney's a New Yorker and probably wants to see one of her horses in the show. And we've seen several seemingly overmatched horses -- particularly deep closers -- get up for a piece of the action at the end of the arduous 12 furlongs. Whitney's own Birdstone paid $74 when he charged from the rear to rob Smarty Jones of a Triple Crown in 2004. The following year, Afleet Alex won the Belmont with ease, while second place went to Andromeda's Hero (closing odds essentially 12-1) and third was a maiden, Nolan's Cat, at roughly 21-1. Alex beat them by 7 and 13 3/4, respectively, but they closed from 10th and 11th -- that's next-to-last and last -- to collect $200,000 and $110,000 paychecks.

But doesn't a horse deserve his conditions? Clearly Luv Gov is no Curlin, who burst on the scene with a huge debut effort at 3 and, almost the next thing you know, was finishing third in the Kentucky Derby, winning the Preakness and barely getting nosed out in the Belmont. A horse that took 10 tries to break maiden doesn't usually inspire such confidence.

It isn't like Luv Gov was brilliant in defeat at Pimlico. He wasn't beat by 15 or 20 lengths; only about nine. But he didn't really beat anybody, either. The only horses he finished ahead of were those whose riders didn't persevere with them once they realized the cause was lost. I haven't seen his Beyer from the Preakness, but judging from Rachel's reported 108, and the distance he finished behind her, I'd guesstimate that Luv Gov earned no better than 91. That could be considered progress from his maiden-breaking 87, but not nearly enough in my mind to try a Grade 1 again next out. (Edit: Belmont-contender PPs are now up at DRF; Luv Gov's Beyer for the Preakness was a bit-surprising 94, and in an interesting change, the Beyer for his maiden win was for some reason upgraded from 87 to 94.)

And I think the colt's pedigree is suspect at least to some degree. While his sire won the Travers at a mile and a quarter and was placed in the Belmont, Luv Gov's dam, City of Silver (Nepal-Silver Discovery, by Mr. Prospector) was a modest winner once from five starts, seems bred to sprint, has produced only two foals to race (a Luv Gov half-brother won once from 12 starts) and the only blacktype winner I can see under his second dam is a granddaughter who was a champion filly ... in Puerto Rico.

Still ... again ... somehow ... Lukas and Co. apparently think he has a shot in the Belmont.

"Wayne said he worked real well (since the Preakness) and that we ought to take a chance," John Hendrickson, Whitney's husband, told The Daily Racing Form. "We've gone off at higher than 30-1 before."

And it isn't like Lukas thinks this race is important. Having won it four times -- but not since 2000 -- Lukas recently said "nobody cares about mile and a half horses anymore" in calling for the Belmont to be shortened. So maybe he figures this is as good a place as any for his 1-for-11 charge.

The more I rant about this colt, I suppose, the more likely it is he'll eventually prove me wrong. Or at least the dumber I'll look if he does. And don't misunderstand; I'm not rooting against him. I'm only assessing his chances as any handicapper would before a big race, and I don't think those chances are good. Not to win, anyway.

So why not give the colt his conditions?

Borel's bet: He chooses filly for the Preakness

So it is confirmed: Rachel Alexandra's new connections, primarily Jess Jackson's Stonestreet Stables, will send the Kentucky Oaks-winning filly to take on the boys in the May 16 Preakness Stakes.

And Calvin Borel, the jockey who pulled off the Oaks-Derby double at Churchill May 1 and 2 has taken off Derby champion Mine That Bird to ride the filly.

It's a good decision for Borel, albeit with some risk. If Rachel Alexandra can beat colts in a Triple Crown race, it will go down as one of the most memorable renewals of the Preakness. And obviously Borel thinks the filly has as much or better chance to win than Mine That Bird, who was a surprise Derby victor (largely due to a spectacular ride by Borel) at 50-1 odds.

If Mine That Bird somehow wins the Preakness -- possible, though he's looking now at being at best third- or fourth-favored in the race (behind Rachel Alexandra, probably Pioneerof The Nile and perhaps a horse like Musket Man) -- then it will be under some other jockey. And that jockey will have a shot at a share of the highly improbable glory when the gelding heads to New York, where his sire, Birdstone, robbed Smarty Jones of a Triple Crown with a late run in the 2004 Belmont Stakes.

Good luck to Rachel Alexandra. May she acquit herself well at Pimlico, and most importantly, may everyone come home safe and sound.