Horse racing - Triple Crown

[obumazombie]

The triple crown is nearly insurmountable. 3 different tracks, 3 different race lengths, 3 different surfaces, all within a compressed time period. Winning any leg of the 3 is an accomplishment. Going into the 3rd leg with 2 wins is fantastic. The horse who wins 2 of the 3 already will make a fortune for it's owners and is guaranteed to be a hall of famer and be a big part of many other champion's bloodlines.
It just may be too much to ask of any horse unless they are a breakaway superstar like previous triple crown winners were.

[Wineslob]

I'm bummed, and I understand the owners disappointment, but rules are rules, and he knew that going in.  He should have kept his mouth shut. 

Running a horse three times in five weeks in three different states is hard on the horse.  That's why there have only been 12 winners in a hundred years, and not one since 1978.

Well, having lived in No. Cal my whole life, and only 45 min from Yuba City...................I'm not surprised. Much like the maligned Rio Linda (Rush Limbaugh) there's a reason why.

[Lacarnut]

I didn’t hear or read about his making fun of the Kentucky Bred horses. Without hearing it in context, I’d have to say that I’d chastise him about that. I did, however, read his comments about their poor treatment at Churchill Downs. Honestly, I initially took it to be an asshole comment from someone who expected to be treated like royalty and wasn’t; however, I later read comments from others (including a former worker at CD) who said that the tract sometimes treat those considered as “outsiders” with less enthusiasm. So I don’t have any idea if he was really slighted or if he was just being a sour apple and supporters and/or disgruntled from track employees were lying to back him up. I do admit the fact that the incident, whether real or imagined, was brought up adds to his potential assholery.

While I realize that there are hundreds of races that horses sit out of we are not talking about them. We are talking about these three specific races that make up the Triple Crown. Since Chrome’s owner made his comments I’ve seen horse racing commentators, who know more about racing that me and maybe you, who have agreed with the owner that there are problems with how the Triple Crown is run. Keep in mind, they didn’t agree with HOW he said it, but they did agree with the main idea. One commentator, and I admit is the only article that I actual read instead of scanned through, wrote that the best thing to do would be to extend the break between the races which would allow any horse attempting all three races to be more rested. I think that would be a good move.

For the record, from an AP article here ( http://sports.yahoo.com/news/california-chrome-heads-home-bandaged-foot-162108003--spt.html ) are comments the owner made the day AFTER the race:
"It's not fair to these horses that are running to entertain these people in all three legs of the Triple Crown," he said. "It's not fair to them to have somebody just show up at the last minute and run. I may have gone off half-cocked yesterday, but that's the way I feel."
You’ll notice that even one day after the event he’s less inflammatory and admits that he may have gone off half-cocked.

From the same article, I think his trainer it best:
"Horses aren't cowards and the people aren't cowards," he said. "He was at the heat of the moment. Don't forget he's a fairly new owner. Sometimes your emotions get in front of you. He hasn't been in the game long and hasn't had any bad luck."

I'm more than willing to concede that he may be an asshole (a term I prefer over loud mouthed redneck). I just don't think that comments made in the heat of the moment is the best basis on which to judge assholery. If so, 99% of NASCAR drivers would be considered assholes.

So what if a few commentators want to change the time span in between races. They do not set the dates or make the rules. Their opinions do not agree with mine. I think how the races are run are just fine. It would be like Michael Phelps complaining that I swam two races in a row and this other competitor ran zero;so, I should have more time to compete in a third race. It does not work like that. If any owner wants to compete for the Triple Crown he/she has to follow tradition/rules that have been in place for many years. Political correctness about it not being fair because horses xyz did not run in the other two races is just a bunch of horse shit IMO.

I will concede that the owner was not treated like royalty at Churchill Downs. He comes off as big loud mouth. That does not set well with most people. However, was his horse denied anything that the other horses got. I do not think so. The race is about the horse not someone with a big ego. The fact that he was a newcomer does not excuse his bad behavior either.     

[Dori]

I saw a lot of interviews with him after the Kentucky Derby.  He didn't come off as an ass then.  He just seemed like a happy go regular guy.

But he is a newcomer.  Probably out of his element with all the big money horse breeders in the circuit, and no surprise they would snub him.  I'll also bet there is a back story to that crowd, where it was no secret they wanted to end California Chrome's chances and put the old fart in his place.

The story of California Chrome is like a Cinderella story.  Two old guys breed a horse for 10 grand, while others are spending ten times that on just stud service, trying to get a good race horse.  Even their trainer, was an old jocky, 77, they found selling tickets at a race track.   



 

[ChuckJ]

So what if a few commentators want to change the time span in between races. They do not set the dates or make the rules. Their opinions do not agree with mine. I think how the races are run are just fine. It would be like Michael Phelps complaining that I swam two races in a row and this other competitor ran zero;so, I should have more time to compete in a third race. It does not work like that. If any owner wants to compete for the Triple Crown he/she has to follow tradition/rules that have been in place for many years. Political correctness about it not being fair because horses xyz did not run in the other two races is just a bunch of horse shit IMO.

I will concede that the owner was not treated like royalty at Churchill Downs. He comes off as big loud mouth. That does not set well with most people. However, was his horse denied anything that the other horses got. I do not think so. The race is about the horse not someone with a big ego. The fact that he was a newcomer does not excuse his bad behavior either.     

I don't think political correctness had anything to do with it. If it did, I wouldn't even be arguing with you.

By the way, I do appreciate that fact that we've been arguing all of this time and not a bitchslap has occurred. At DU they'd have already broken the alert button. 

Back to the matter at hand, the opinions of the commentators are just as valid as yours and mine regardless of whether or not they agree with you. Maybe more so since some of them are either former jockeys or other professions within the business.

I will, however, agree with you that changing the schedule would be a change of tradition and that would concern me a bit.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the owner. While I have seen enough out of him to agree the "loud mouth" label fits (I think he'd even agree to that), I have not seen enough of him to use the label in a belligerent (aka he's an asshole) way.

[thundley4]

Just a little off-topic. It seems like no one really cares about the Belmont stakes unless one of the horses that is running has already won the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby.   In fact, I rarely hear about the Preakness winner unless they are running in the Derby.

Isn't the Derby really the crown jewel of racing?

[ChuckJ]

Just a little off-topic. It seems like no one really cares about the Belmont stakes unless one of the horses that is running has already won the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby.   In fact, I rarely hear about the Preakness winner unless they are running in the Derby.

Isn't the Derby really the crown jewel of racing?

I don't know if I'd exactly say that no one really cares about it, but you are correct that it seems that the Derby is THE race.

[thundley4]

I don't know if I'd exactly say that no one really cares about it, but you are correct that it seems that the Derby is THE race.

Up until the Derby was ran and won, I'd never heard who had won the Preakness.

[ChuckJ]

Up until the Derby was ran and won, I'd never heard who had won the Preakness.

Even back when I used to watch races regularly I really didn't keep up with who won except for the 85 (I think) Preakness. Something about the fire that a horse named Tank's Prospect was showing as they led him to the starting gate caught my eye. He ended up winning the race in near record time. Sadly, he broke down in the Belmont.

[JohnnyReb]

It all had the makings of a good story but then the horse and the owner let us down.....but mostly the owner. The horse did his best, the owner didn't.

[ChuckJ]

It all had the makings of a good story but then the horse and the owner let us down.....but mostly the owner. The horse did his best, the owner didn't.

I'm wondering what kind of difference the injury to the hoof made in his run. When I first glanced at the photos I thought it was just a scratch, but later I heard some claiming it actually took a chunk out of him.