queencitybuckeye;1617886 wrote:A triple crown winner is special by definition. You are what the scoreboard says you are.

This.

It's nearly impossible to win the triple crown.

But we're not supposed to believe it's impressive for chrome to do it because gut says so..?

SportsAndLady;1617895 wrote: But we're not supposed to believe it's impressive for chrome to do it because gut says so..?

No, because many analysts have said the the field is weak this year. Yes, it will be a "special" achievement winning the TC in a sub-par year for thoroughbreds....like a baseball player winning the TC with just 30 homeruns.

gut;1617898 wrote:No, because many analysts have said the the field is weak this year. Yes, it will be a "special" achievement winning the TC in a sub-par year for thoroughbreds....like a baseball player winning the TC with just 30 homeruns.

Better to be the worst to accomplish something than the best not to.

Sour grapes. Go back to Cali, loser

gut;1623530 wrote:Sour grapes. Go back to Cali, loser

This.

Wow what a sore loser.

I agree with him, how the hell are horses allowed in this race who didn't run three weeks ago? We were talking about this before today's race. Still wouldn't have said it he way he did with the world watching, but I agree 100%

ou1980;1623538 wrote:I agree with him, how the hell are horses allowed in this race who didn't run three weeks ago? We were talking about this before today's race. Still wouldn't have said it he way he did with the world watching, but I agree 100%

ALWAYS been that way. The fields are bigger today, but 12 other horses the past 36 years have met the same fate...and several of those did better than a photo finish for 4th.

Who cares if it's always been that way. You should have to have raced in the first two races to race at Belmont. And I'm saying this as a arm-chair horse race viewer, meaning I watch two races a year. Only until this year did I realize that horses don't have to compete in the first to races to race at Belmont. And that's messed up.

What I'm saying to conclusion is this sport needs to adapt. Every sport adapts to the times, why this should be different?

ou1980;1623554 wrote:What I'm saying to conclusion is this sport needs to adapt. Every sport adapts to the times, why this should be different?

You do realize these are individual races and not some sort of circuit? The Triple Crown is not an event unto itself, just a prize for winning all 3 races.

His comment is pretty stupid IMO - these races don't exist to see if a horse can beat a field of 8-20 horses 3 straight times. And you have the Breeders Cup Classic at the end of the year which is basically the championship.

Not to mention, his comment might have had more merit if his horse had shown better than it did. As it was, it was a pretty favorable crop of horses for Chrome to do it this year.

And there may be no other sport that rivals the steeped traditions of horse racing. Nor would the Belmont be the "Test of Champions" if some of the best horses weren't allowed to run.

So it's ok for a horse who competed 3 weeks ago to go against horses who haven't raced in 6 weeks? That's idiotic and I don't give a damn about tradition. This just opened a great discussion that thanks to his interview will finally receive attention. The Belmont is not a level playing field. Had wicked strong won the derby he would have been in the Preakness. Not be rested for 6 weeks by his owners.

ou1980;1623554 wrote:What I'm saying to conclusion is this sport needs to adapt. Every sport adapts to the times, why this should be different?

Why? They don't seem to be losing their following.

They shouldn't adapt simply because every other sport adapts. They should adapt if they sport needs to. It's a business.

They shouldn't adapt just so it's easier to win a triple crown....unless they are losing their following and thus money.

ou1980;1623566 wrote:So it's ok for a horse who competed 3 weeks ago to go against horses who haven't raced in 6 weeks? That's idiotic and I don't give a damn about tradition. This just opened a great discussion that thanks to his interview will finally receive attention. The Belmont is not a level playing field. Had wicked strong won the derby he would have been in the Preakness. Not be rested for 6 weeks by his owners.

It would be a level playing field if those who ran in both the Kentucky derby and the Preakness chose to come to the Belmont having completed only one of those races. California Chrome chose to do both. That's the owners choice.

ou1980;1623566 wrote:So it's ok for a horse who competed 3 weeks ago to go against horses who haven't raced in 6 weeks? That's idiotic and I don't give a damn about tradition. This just opened a great discussion that thanks to his interview will finally receive attention. The Belmont is not a level playing field. Had wicked strong won the derby he would have been in the Preakness. Not be rested for 6 weeks by his owners.

Do horses really need that much time off to be at 100%? 3 weeks seems like plenty of time to be back to full strength. Of course im saying these things with 0 knowledge about horse racing so if anyone can give some sort of explanation it would be BEAUTIFUL.

ou1980;1623566 wrote:So it's ok for a horse who competed 3 weeks ago to go against horses who haven't raced in 6 weeks? That's idiotic and I don't give a damn about tradition. This just opened a great discussion that thanks to his interview will finally receive attention. The Belmont is not a level playing field. Had wicked strong won the derby he would have been in the Preakness. Not be rested for 6 weeks by his owners.

They're individual races. You own horses to win races. These are 3 MAJOR races, and believe it or not the TC is secondary to winning just 1 of those races. It's so tough to win those 3 races that they decided to give a special prize to the achievement. Now you want to water-down that achievement?

A horse will win the TC eventually. There's no need to change the rules - in the last 15 years or so Real Quiet, Silver Charm and Smarty Jones all got run down in the final 100M to lose by less than a length. And who knows if Barbaro hadn't broken his leg.

Rotinaj;1623572 wrote:Do horses really need that much time off to be at 100%? 3 weeks seems like plenty of time to be back to full strength. Of course im saying these things with 0 knowledge about horse racing so if anyone can give some sort of explanation it would be BEAUTIFUL.

I think the bigger issue is some people skip the Derby or Preakness (or both) to target and train for the Belmont, and some horses run a lot more on that track. People criticized Lance Armstrong for doing pretty much the same thing with the TdF. So what - your horse has one crack at the Belmont Stakes and why should you be handicapped because someone else won the Derby and Preakness?

Some people have talked about spacing the races out a month to take away the advantage of being more rested. That would make a lot more sense then requiring horses to run all 3. I don't like the idea. These horses have been running most the same times for decades, and consider Secretariat owns all 3 track records that have stood for over 40 years. The history and tradition are a big part of the spectacle.

But that's the whole mystique of the TC, that a horse is so special that it can take all comers even if they've had more rest. It wouldn't captivate if it wasn't really hard and rare.

Pat Forde agrees with me at Yahoo Sports
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/california-chrome-owner-part-class--part-ass-in-defeat-010645280.html

Lol. CC didnt lose because he raced in the Preakness and the others didnt. He lost because he isnt a long track specialist, and the Belmont is 1.5 miles. Derby is 1.25 and Preakness is 1 and 3/16.

He wasnt complaining when he beat a Preakness field that wasnt a repeat of the Kentucky Derby just 2 weeks later.

I said a few weeks ago he was an unimpressive, unexciting horse. It should be no shocker that no less than 10 horses in the last 15-20 years were at least as good or better...and none of their owners bitched about the TC being unfair.

CC just wasn't good enough to beat a mediocre TC field. He had no business winning the TC and I'm glad he didn't. It takes a special horse to win the TC, and CC is not a special horse.

Granted, I'm sympathetic to what I'm sure are regretful comments. The owners could have made a bundle selling him 2 months ago, but they had a lotto ticket...That stinging loss today cost them tens of millions.

Anyway, this all sets the stage for a LEGENDARY run at the TC next year (or the year after)....For all the talk about "impossible" this was the 6th run for the TC in 12 years.

Greatest horse of all time (no not Secreteriat) only raced in and won two legs of the TC... Man O' War did not run in the KY Derby but won both the Preakness & Belmont by large margins. He raced in many more races than horses run today.

SportsAndLady;1623536 wrote:This.

Wow what a sore loser.

Agree. I mean he does have a point, but his horse finished 4th, it's not like he lost by a nose to a horse only in the Belmont, he ran out of gas and got blown the fuck out

Coburn's meltdown was awesome...as was the pretentiously aghast reaction from the announcers.

gut;1623624 wrote:... The owners could have made a bundle selling him 2 months ago, but they had a lotto ticket...That stinging loss today cost them tens of millions.

I think it was in the Kentucky Derby thread that I posted they were offered $6 million for 50% ownership of California Chrome before the race and they turned it down.

California Chrome's owners will make major dollars off of stud fees. Good for them. California Chrome will be one lucky horse many times over again.