I'm fully aware that based upon what I'm about to express, I'll be thought of as many things, none of which are very flattering.
Many will think of me as a stick-in-the-mud. A cynic. A curmudgeon. A jaded and unromantic soul. Maybe even a bit of a chauvinist.
But that won't change my viewpoint. It doesn't alter an undeniable reality. Yes, Rags to Riches' victory in the 139th Belmont Stakes was both impressive and stirring. Her duel with the game Curlin was one of the most memorable stretch battles of recent vintage.
And yes, it provided a feel-good story that the sport of horse racing desperately needed and would be well advised to capitalize on.
Rags to Riches accomplished something that only two fillies managed to achieve. Namely, crossing the finishing line first in arguably the most demanding of the Triple Crown races. For one of the few and infrequent times on American soil in a high profile race, a filly got the better of the colts. In this instance, the female showed her backside to the guys and clearly had the last word. So, you go girl!
Yet, no matter how much the press tries to hype the significance of this victory, no matter the countless people that rhapsodized over the historical impact of what took place in New York last Saturday, one fact remains immutable. It can't be changed and should be seriously weighed when judging the merits of Rags to Riches' triumph.
Plain and simple, she got help. She had a built-in advantage. She was given a definite edge that clearly played into her successful and winning trip. Every other horse in the race carried a heavier, and in the minds of most racing aficionados, a more consequential burden. And to the fair-minded observer, that little piece of information shouldn't be ignored of forgotten.
While the colts were lugging around 126 pounds on their back, the sprightly filly was asked to tote the lesser amount of 121.
To the casual observer, a 5-pound discrepancy seems rather immaterial. No big deal, right? Really, how can such a relatively small amount make such a difference?
But talk to experienced trainers, jockeys and railbirds and they will almost universally admit it makes a decided difference, particularly in longer distance races like the Belmont. Ex-jockey great Jerry Bailey acknowledged as much during his post-race analysis on television. When you've got insightful people-in-the-know indicating that a variance in weight has a direct influence on outcomes, it's hard to dismiss their assertions as being totally beside point.
I've always detested and been dismissive of handicap races. Basically, you're punishing better horses while bucking up those not quite as good. By placing additional weight on some horses while lightening the load for others, you create an imbalance that in many ways damages the credibility of the sport.
It's a brainless practice that prevents very good horses from being outstanding and outstanding horses from becoming legends. And in a sport crying out for more superstars and four-legged standouts that the public can embrace, such a posture is idiotic.
What's so wrong with making every horse in every race compete under the same conditions with no exceptions? Then, there's no grey area as to who is truly the best. Start everyone off on an equal foot, err hoof, and let the chips fall where they may. There's just no need to dole out advantages to some at the expense of other more accomplished competitors. It makes no sense to hamstring and undermine those that are excelling.
My intention is not in any way to slight Rags to Riches and her effort. She's a brave, determined and gutsy filly who's a supreme competitor. Her rhythmic running style is a thing of beauty. All respect and homage should be accorded her. Under the current set-up and criteria, she won fair and square and nothing anyone says can diminish that fact.
Yet, there's not a horsemen worth his salt who would contend that the Belmont wouldn't have ended differently if Rags to Riches had been weighed down to the same extent as were her rivals. Those 5 pounds were huge and help explain why the filly was able to repulse Curlin's desperate drive to the finish.
But give her credit. Yes, she caught a definite break but she deserves plenty of kudos for making the most of it. She parlayed that big plus into a dramatic march to the winner's circle.
One final note if I may. The real hero in all this should be Curlin. But because of the stigma of losing to the filly, he probably won't get his just props.
Aside from the willing but mediocre Hard Spun, Curlin was the only other horse to run in all three Triple Crown events, a grueling and physically demanding endeavor.
Yet, Curlin distinguished himself with runner-up finishes in the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont while winning a classic stretch tussle of his own when he outlasted the esteemed Street Sense in a riveting Preakness.
In an age when owners and trainers lack the gumption and guts to truly test their horses' stamina and durability, Curlin stood out as a breath of fresh air.
He answered the bell three times in five weeks and gave a good account of himself on each occasion. He's been the one true warrior of the 2007 racing season willing to step-up and put himself on the line while others, including Street Sense and Rags to Riches, shrunk from such a challenge.
And that sort of tenacity, heart and commitment needs to be saluted and praised.
Given the grind that he underwent, Curlin's inability to overtake the filly was understandable. He'd been through the wars and those previous battles took enough out of him that he couldn't quite fire down the stretch as well as his camp would have liked.
Meanwhile, Rags to Riches was fresh, rested and primed for a splendid showing having raced only once since early May. Her savvy trainer Todd Pletcher knew the time was ideal to spot his filly and let her have a go at the boys. And Rags to Riches proved Pletcher to be a prophet because his hunch paid off handsomely.
In the aftermath of the Belmont result, some revisionists have tried to assert that had Rags to Riches run in the Derby, she would have come out on top. To which I say, horse manure!
If that's the case, then why didn't her handlers simply man-up and enter her in the Derby? The truth is that Pletcher knew Rags to Riches' chances would have been compromised in Louisville because she would have experienced a more congested trip and encountered a field that was sharper, fresher and tougher.
By waiting until the Belmont to match up with the boys, a decision incidentally that wasn't reached until Street Sense opted out, Rags to Riches was insured to face a field that was both softer and in the case of Curlin and Hard Spun, worn down.
In truth, the circumstances couldn't have set up any better for her. Conditions were at an optimum for her to succeed. So while we must tip our hat to this remarkable filly, let's not lose all perspective.
Yes, she won and she deserves considerable plaudits for that but the stark reality is that she needed more than a little help to do it. And there are plenty of people who believe she couldn't have whipped the boys without it.