Do you think there will be a Triple a Crown winner ever again in horse racing?

I guess we have this question resolved. I hope any discussions of changing the Triple Crown will now cease. We don't need the distances shortened, the races spread apart, or restricting competition to only those horses who compete in all three races (i.e. the "no fresh horses" argument). The difficulty of winning the Triple Crown is what makes these small handful of horses so great.

OM...horse racing. Anyone that's been around horses knows there's more to horse racing than the jockeys or the horses. First, the track. Some horses do well on some tracks - same with jockeys. Then there's a huge amount of money in stud fees that really makes a fair competition impossible. People will do anything, literally anything, to ensure their horse wins. It's not for the win, the trophy or the prize money - it's for the stud fees. Millions of dollars is just the beginning. Finally, there's organized crime - it's worth hundreds of millions for all sorts of combinations and owners/jockeys/everyone is in the middle of it, with organized crime winning at every flick of the whip.

I think the interview with the owner brings something to light. Why bring in fresh horses that haven't competed into the race for the triple crown? In auto racing, a team can't put in a fresh car or driver. Baseball you are stuck to your lineup.

I think there should be a Belmont, but the triple crown should be its own race from the field that competes in all three races.