by Mark Kriegel

Updated: June 6, 2008, 11:38 AM EST 219 comments

add this RSS blog email print

Steven Crist, a recent graduate of Harvard College, had planned a career teaching the great romance novels. But the race — which Affirmed won by a head — only reinforced another ambition: to spend a life at the track.

Crist's sympathies, not to mention his copy boy's wages, had been with Alydar, who had finished a close second in the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, yet whom he still considered "the dashing, romantic come-from-behind horse." Alydar would finish second yet again at the Belmont. But the romance of that afternoon was undeniable. Crist had seen one of the great races in history. He had seen a horse claim the Triple Crown, the third such winner since 1973. Pretty cool, he thought: "Guess this is going to happen every couple of years."

Three decades later, Crist has become chairman, publisher and columnist for Daily Racing Form. Horse racing, despite his best efforts, has fallen from prominence in the American consciousness.

But now Big Brown, heavily favored to win this Saturday at Belmont, stands to become the first Triple Crown winner since Affirmed. My editors want to know if the romance engendered by such a victory can save the sport of kings.

So I call Crist, who wonders if editors can be saved.

He's accustomed to these inquiries, of course. Since '78, 10 horses have won the first two legs of the Triple Crown — the Derby and the Preakness — only to lose at the Belmont. But as general interest in racing has waned, each prospective Triple Crown winner is tagged as a potential savior.

"I don't think horse racing needs saving," Crist said. "But if it does, it's not because a horse hasn't won the Triple Crown in 30 years."

Curiously enough, Saturday's race could draw twice the crowd that saw Affirmed beat Alydar. What's more, a Big Brown victory would grant the sport another several hours of notice in the news cycle, at least until the NBA Finals resume on Sunday. But beyond that, it won't change the business one bit. Big Brown will be put out to stud, and by the middle of next week, life at Belmont — a 430- acre monument to what racing once was — will go back to normal. Said Crist, "You'll see the same 2,000 people who always go out there on a Wednesday."

Their ranks are mostly older and male, not the demographic coveted by manufacturers of video games and sports drinks. Still, that's not to say thoroughbred racing is headed toward extinction. According to the Jockey Club, $15.445 billion was wagered on horse racing in North America last year. The handle, as it is called, has been above $15 billion since 2000, with a high of $15.940 wagered in 2003. But most of the money — about 89 percent in the United States — is bet off track in OTBs, casinos and, most of all, on your laptop.

"The track itself is dead," Crist said. "But even adjusting for inflation, the handle is better than ever."

Simulcasting in the Internet age means that guys who once bet nine races a day can bet 100. You can play every track without being at a single one. More than that, though, the sporting landscape has changed. Horse racing, said Crist, "occupies a smaller niche in a bigger world."

Chances are, in your father's or grandfather's America — where horses, fights and baseball were the Big Three — a man's only way to place a legal bet was at the track. But gambling has lost much of its stigma. State governments administering lotteries have usurped the role traditionally held by men who ran the numbers. The Super Bowl and March Madness have become secular holidays, featuring oddsmakers as high priests. Bettors also have a bewildering choice of amusement parks: Vegas, Atlantic City or any number of Indian casinos where one can play blackjack, video poker or slot machines.

But as gambling has become more accessible and prevalent, gambling culture has been dumbed down. It's easier to bet with a point spread — where the oddsmakers have done all the work — than it is figuring the odds.

(PAUL J. RICHARDS / Getty Images)

I recall my uncle Moishe studying his Racing Form, considering facts and figures as if clues from a sacred Talmudic text. The well-chosen winner was inevitably the source of some real satisfaction, even conceit. But this ritual took some time and effort. "To play horses you have to do your homework," Crist said. "It's a far more cerebral activity than sitting in front of a slot like a zombie and pulling a handle. Then again, a lot of marketing experts will tell you that people would rather sit like a zombie and pull the handle than try to calculate pace figures in a horse race."

The junket gambler is not a romantic. But, then, Crist isn't so quick to admit his affections, either.

Big Brown isn't a bad story. He has a big-talking trainer in Rick Dutrow and a jockey looking for redemption. Kent Desormeaux lost his bid for a Triple Crown when his horse Real Quiet lost by a nose 10 years ago.

Still, Crist isn't crazy for Big Brown. The horse hasn't run a "superfast" race. He hasn't been tested. The price on a favorite like this is just way too short.

"What about the 10 others?" he asked, referring to the horses who won the Derby and the Preakness before failing in the Belmont. "They were hardly a bunch of tomato cans. They were all really good horses, and they still found a way to lose this race. Winning this race is a very hard thing to do."

And so Crist describes his feeling toward this race as "very Zen-like"

In other words, he doesn't want to get his hopes up.

Still, there's another problem with Big Brown, perhaps the greatest shame of all.

"He doesn't have a great rival," Crist said. "To prove himself."

Therein is the real rebuke for those possessed of that zombie-like urge to play the slots. This is the romantic's confession, his way of saying that Big Brown needs an Alydar of his own.