OT: Rooting for California Chrome!!

[pap49cba]

Been too long since we've had a Triple Crown winner. Hope he gets it done!

 

[intlzncster]

Whelp, so much for that.

 

[alexrgct]

I was born the last year a horse won the triple crown. I'd love to see one do it in my conscious lifetime.

 

[UConnChapette]

Sadly, no. He couldn't get it done.

Coburn, one of the owners, makes a good point - though the timing and the tone indicates a somewhat bitter taste of sour grapes - understandable, but not a classy way to present yourself or your argument.

His point - We probably will never see another triple crown winner in his lifetime. For one horse to win the triple crown, they have to win three races in 5 weeks. But any horse can run in the Preakness and Belmont which, from what was said during the broadcast, can be an advantage to the horses that didn't run the first two races because they are fresher.

His thoughts are if you don't have enough points to run in the Kentucky Derby, your horse shouldn't be able to run in the Preakness or Belmont either. I see his point, but I am not sure I agree with that. Maybe a better alternative is to spaces each of the triple crown races out a bit more to allow more recovery time for the Derby and Preakness horses to recover. Level the track, so to speak.

 

[Sonny44]

Been too long since we've had a Triple Crown winner. Hope he gets it done!

I was rooting for him too, but only if he were to bury the mediocre competition.
After hearing all that garbage from the owner I'm glad he didn't.

 

[meyers7]

I was pulling for Wicked Strong, but he didn't do that well either. I'm ok with Chrome not winning. I want the Triple Crown Winner to really be something special.

 

[BearJWS]

I was pulling for Wicked Strong, but he didn't do that well either. I'm ok with Chrome not winning. I want the Triple Crown Winner to really be something special.

Wouldn't have Chrome winning have been special?

 

[Zorro]

He was making this argument long before today, and inho he is exactly right. They really ought to add an additional week between the races.

 

[johnnyc]

He was making this argument long before today, and inho he is exactly right. They really ought to add an additional week between the races.

Instant asterisk.

 

[Sonny44]

Wouldn't have Chrome winning have been special?

I don't think so. A triple crown winner should be convincing if not dominant. He squeaked out the first two over mediocre competition, I was rooting for him, but only if he could bury the others.

 

[BearJWS]

I don't think so. A triple crown winner should be convincing if not dominant. He squeaked out the first two over mediocre competition, I was rooting for him, but only if he could bury the others.

Ok, so doing something no other horse has done in 36 years is not special, considering California Chrome was competing against other horses who haven't competed in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness with fresh legs. Got it...

 

[Sonny44]

Ok, so doing something no other horse has done in 36 years is not special, considering California Chrome was competing against other horses who haven't competed in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness with fresh legs. Got it...

I don't really think you "got it", my opinion that is.
If you look ate the triple crown videos (Jewels of the Triple Crown, YouTube) you will see that the great ones; Whirlaway, Citation, Secretariat, Seattle Slew and others buried their competition. The exception was Affirmed, but Alydar was a great horse who would have won the TC had it not been for him. Those were special horses in my opinion. The racing schedule didn't seem to bother them. For some of them the Preakness was run closer to the Derby, even before it.
There were others too. such as Tim Tam who most certainly would have won the TC but ran on an injured leg at the Belmont.
I don't think you can tell a racetrack when they can run their races.
In my opinion only two two factors can make a horse great; his times and his competition. Unfortunately, CC had neither.
Yes, I understand America is always looking for a hero [I was too]. But in my opinion California Chrome just wasn't it. Would have been nice, he gave us some thrills, but we'll have to keep waiting for the next one.

 

[pinotbear]

Sonny, I would add to your admiration for Alydar, a tip of the hat to Sham. For a long time - could still be the case, I don't know - the second-fastest time ever run in the Derby was his runner-up effort to Secretariat. He also ran second to Big Red in the Preakness, and stayed with Secretariat for the first half of the Belmont - when that Belmont strategy proved foolhardy, Pincay eased Sham, so as not to do harm to the horse. Not second in all 3, like Alydar, but a gallant effort.

 

[pap49cba]

Some new info... LINK

 

[Waquoit]

Ok, so doing something no other horse has done in 36 years is not special, considering California Chrome was competing against other horses who haven't competed in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness with fresh legs. Got it...

There are always new shooters in the Triple Crown races. What a crybaby. I'm glad his horse didn't win.

 

[intlzncster]

There are always new shooters in the Triple Crown races. What a crybaby. I'm glad his horse didn't win.

Actually, this is the dream scenario for horse racing in general. Horse wins first 2 legs of the TC, and loses the third. So we can do it all again next year. Hype.

 

[Fishy]

Proposing changes to the triple crown is nonsense - in reality, we're a handful of lengths away from having about seven triple crown winners in the last 30 years.

Yesterday was just a tired horse and a bit of bad luck - there is a pretty good picture in the DRF today of California Chrome being stepped on right out of the gate. The outside horse started sideways and stepped on his right forefoot. It was bleeding and he was limping noticeably after the race.

 

[intlzncster]

Proposing changes to the triple crown is nonsense - in reality, we're a handful of lengths away from having about seven triple crown winners in the last 30 years.

Additionally, all the other triple crown winners didn't have the proposed advantage. So yeah, bad idea.

 

[Geno-ista]

Sonny, I would add to your admiration for Alydar, a tip of the hat to Sham. For a long time - could still be the case, I don't know - the second-fastest time ever run in the Derby was his runner-up effort to Secretariat. He also ran second to Big Red in the Preakness, and stayed with Secretariat for the first half of the Belmont - when that Belmont strategy proved foolhardy, Pincay eased Sham, so as not to do harm to the horse. Not second in all 3, like Alydar, but a gallant effort.

Sham was a great horse, I think he set or beat track records in both the Derby and Preakness. While running 2nd to Secretariat.

 

[Geno-ista]

The Triple Crown is special. The rules have been the same forever. Changing them would just water down everything like we always seam to want to do. After the owner showed his true colors in a classless disgraceful display- I am glad he didn't win also. And the coverage should have focused sooner and more on Robert/Shell Evans the winning owner. My brother managed his breeding farms for years. Class act. Long time participant in the sport. Showed class by making no comment to the other comments made. The current rules are what make the triple crown so special. It would do a disservice to prior winners by making changes. The Breed reached it's absolute peak with Secretariat- that is the undisputed truth. Many other magnificent animals have raced. But there will probably never be another Secretariat.

 

[Alydar]

If the rules changes that were suggested were implimented we would see Belmont Stakes with 2 or 3 horses and likely see a walk-over race. The day you get the owners of the three TC tracks agree to anything will be the first time.

 

[Husky25]

I was at Belmont for the Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Big Brown attempts as well as the one yesterday. I was also there in 2005 with no Triple Crown on the line.

Changing the rules of the triple crown will likely precipitate the closing of at least Pimlico and maybe Belmont Park. The triple crown races and (in Belmont's case) a threat of a Triple Crown winner brings at least 1/3-1/2 more spectators to the the track than a non-threat (In '05 I literally thought at times that I had my own dedicated bet taker. There were about 80,000 people there but felt somewhat empty in compaison.). Belmont park still has non-HD tube monitors over the betting windows. Even Rentschler's closed circuit system has hi-def monitors at the concessions.

Tracks are losing money hand over fist and these high profile events literally fund them for the season and save the sport.

The perception of wide spread equine abuse already hurts. I was really looking forward to where "Luck" was going within the sport but then a few horses died despite every reasonable effort to protect them and got activists in even more of a tizzy. Eight Belles being euthanized on the track at Churchill Downs and Barbaro meeting the same fate soon after his injury doesnt help either.

Bottom line is that Steve Coburn is a sore loser.

 

[Waquoit]

If the rules changes that were suggested were implimented we would see Belmont Stakes with 2 or 3 horses and likely see a walk-over race. The day you get the owners of the three TC tracks agree to anything will be the first time.

Just a silly idea from a bad loser. AP Indy was the best horse of his generation and one of the greatest sires of all-time. His TC campaign was the same as Tonalist. He wasn't fit in time for the Derby. Instead he won the Belmont after prepping in the Peter Pan. And he went on to win the BC Classic. He souldn't have been allowed in to the Belmont? He can stick that cowboy hat up his bucket.

 

[pinotbear]

Additionally, all the other triple crown winners didn't have the proposed advantage. So yeah, bad idea.

Plus, I just can't see either Pimlico or Belmont agreeing to this: the introduction of different horses, different characters in the drama, adds to the appeal of the latter races. How'd you like to be Belmont, seeing a reduced version of the Preakness, in itself a reduced version of the Derby. It'd be part deja' vu, part dance marathon, with no "new blood", no new plot lines or possibilities. As it is, there are years when the fields in the Preakness n' Belmont are notably smaller than the Derby - if memory serves, there have been years when the Belmont didn't have 10 horses go to the post, under the current system.

 

[UConnChapette]

Plus, I just can't see either Pimlico or Belmont agreeing to this: the introduction of different horses, different characters in the drama, adds to the appeal of the latter races. How'd you like to be Belmont, seeing a reduced version of the Preakness, in itself a reduced version of the Derby. It'd be part deja' vu, part dance marathon, with no "new blood", no new plot lines or possibilities. As it is, there are years when the fields in the Preakness n' Belmont are notably smaller than the Derby - if memory serves, there have been years when the Belmont didn't have 10 horses go to the post, under the current system.

How about the rotation of the running order of the three Triple Crown race?. Employ a three year cycle - KD, Preakness, Belmont...next year Preakness, Belmont, KD...next year Belmont, KD, Preakness. Give each of them the chance to be the first leg. Now that would be interesting - especially the years when the Belmont would be first..the longest race first.

It will never happen, I know. The TC is one of those events so steeped in tradition you don't dare mess with it.