Belmont Stakes Picks: How Rule Changes Could Adversely Affect Field

There are plenty of factors that might affect the outcome of a horse race. For example, there's post position, there are rack conditions, there's humidity. Some horses will experience adverse reactions to any of these factors, and some won't. Some will just cruise right along, oblivious.

The institution of a detention barn at the Belmont Stakes is another factor that could or could not affect the horses running this year in Elmont, N.Y. The only difference is, the detention barn—unlike humidity or a muddy track—is avoidable.

If it's avoidable and it could compromise the performances of some of the premiere horses in the sport, why is it being instituted just days before the Belmont Stakes?

The New York State Racing and Wagering Board decided last week to have all 10 contenders at the Belmont moved to a detention barn where they will be closely monitored prior to the race on June 9, in the hopes that the race will be run more fairly. SI.com's Tim Layden calls it the "Doug O'Neill Rule," in light of the fact that the star trainer's recent racing violations may have led to the stricter regulations. 

So far, though, the change isn't helping anyone. All it's doing is angering most of the trainers charged with preparing the race's top contenders.

The detention barn opens on Tuesday, and most of the colts are expected there no later than Wednesday, giving them just four or five days to acclimate to their new surroundings before one of the biggest events on the horse-racing calendar.

A particularly furious Dale Romans, trainer of Kentucky Derby third-place finisher Dullahan, said the decision to implement the detention barn is a terrible one, regardless of the Racing Board's intentions. He told the Associated Press: 

"

They are not cars that you can just go and move from one garage to the next. These are creatures of habit. They like being where they are. The biggest problem we have in our game is the disconnect between the regulators of the game and the reality of what goes on on the backside [barn area]. 

"

Romans is right. Instead of creating parity among this year's contenders, the detention barn is only putting everyone—even Triple Crown contender I'll Have Another—at a disadvantage. Horses prefer routines, and they perform their best when they are comfortable; moving them to a new setting just four days before one of the biggest races of their careers is not only nonsensical, it's reckless.

Part of the reason I'll Have Another was able to have so much success at this year's Preakness was because trainer Doug O'Neill shipped him to Pimlico the Monday after the Derby, giving the horse almost two weeks to acclimate to his surroundings before the race. According to the AP, it made I'll Have Another the earliest arriving Derby Winner since the 2001 Derby winner arrived at the Preakness four days after winning at Churchill Downs.

Alternately, Union Rags—who had been one of the favorites to win the Derby before a disappointing seventh-place finish—arrived at Churchill Downs nine days before the race, and even that may have not been enough time to adjust.

Now, these horses are getting four days? Five at the most? How is that a helpful rule change? How is that anything but an inconvenience and one that could compromise the outcome of this race—never mind compromise I'll Have Another's bid for the Triple Crown?

Trainers worry that, in addition to the location change, the horses will be uncomfortable with the weak lighting in the barn and they might become distracted from being in such close proximity to one another, according to the AP.  

The Racing Board's attempt to keep this race fair and honest is admirable, particularly in light of recent violations that have been levied against Doug O'Neill, but now is not the time. Now, right in midst of the most important stretch of the racing schedule, is not the proper time to change things up—not when it could compromise any and every horse's performance.

In the end, a move that is supposed to make the race more fair for everyone is more likely to have the opposite effect.