California Chrome

[RichThrawn]

Was is it that makes the Belmont so difficult to win?  He's the 12th horse in 36 years that had a chance at the Triple Crown and blew it

[MikeO]

Was is it that makes the Belmont so difficult to win?  He's the 12th horse in 36 years that had a chance at the Triple Crown and blew it

I never post in this part of the board but I love horse racing and saw this topic so I will make a rare appearance here...lol. The Belmont is a mile and a half, which is longer than most races. Also as the owner said after the race in his sore-loser rant on national TV....some owners have their horses sit out the Derby and/or Preakness and rest up just to win the Belmont. Which they are entitled too and what today's winner did. Chrome and others going for the Triple Crown have to run 3 races in 5 weeks or so. With the travel and all that is exhausting and takes a toll on the horse. This horse today that won didn't have to do that, he was rested and was bred to run longer distances (ie like the Belmont race) and has ran many times at that track and its familiar to him.

Chrome didn't blow it today either. The Triple Crown is special, if a horse won it every couple years then it wouldn't be special and nobody would care. The fact its so hard to accomplish is what makes it special.

[masterfins]

Was is it that makes the Belmont so difficult to win?  He's the 12th horse in 36 years that had a chance at the Triple Crown and blew it

California Chrome didn't blow it, he ran a good race but just didn't have the energy for that distance.  Every year some horses are trained solely to run the 1 1/2 mile distance and win the Belmont.  A win means big stud fees.

The problem is that a horse must earn so much money to get in the Kentucky Derby; which comes from races that are mostly 1 1/8 miles, so that they can't train for the longer 1 1/2 mile race.  I'm not a fan of the Kentucky Derby either, they put 20 horses out there banging around and a potential Triple Crown winner never has a chance because of a bad post position.  Throw in a year with a muddy track and the Derby is a mess.


Smarty Jones and Big Brown were both horses I thought could win the Triple Crown, California Chrome not so much.

[Phishfan]

A bit off topic but this is likely the only horse racing thread we will have for a year. I have a moral objection to the sport. Likely as dirty as bicycle racing if you ask me and the horses have no choice in the matter.

[Sunstroke]

...and the horses have no choice in the matter.

As someone who grew up in the saddle, I have to make three small points:

1) Horses reeeeeeally love to run as fast as they can run. Rider on, rider off, on the track or in the pasture, horses love to run like dogs like to bark.
2) Racehorses are treated like royalty. They get the best food, the best quarters, the best breeding mares, etc...
3) If it wasn't for horse racing and rodeos, horses would end up being just another source of meat for humans.

[Cathal]

I just saw his "rant" and it seemed quite tame and actually made sense. I'm sure that's not at all how the "elite" of society should have acted but it seemed OK to me. I don't watch horse racing nor care to his quick description of a problem seems spot on or at least a conversation that the people in charge of horse racing should start talking about.

[Pappy13]

I just saw his "rant" and it seemed quite tame and actually made sense. I'm sure that's not at all how the "elite" of society should have acted but it seemed OK to me. I don't watch horse racing nor care to his quick description of a problem seems spot on or at least a conversation that the people in charge of horse racing should start talking about.

At first glance his argument would seem to make some sense, but you have to look beyond that. The triple crown is very similar to the grand slam in Tennis. The Grand Slam in tennis is 4 different tournaments and anyone can enter the 4 tournaments. If you win all 4, you've won the grand slam. It's the same with the triple crown, anyone can enter the 3 races. If you win all 3 you've won the triple crown. So why shouldn't anyone be allowed to enter their horse in just the race they think their horse has the best chance at winning? There are tennis players that skip grand slam tournaments for various reasons every year, should they not be allowed to play Wimbledon because they didn't compete in the others tournaments of the grand slam? No, that's silly. It's the same for horses, to disallow them simply because they didn't enter the other 2 races is silly. Do they have an advantage because it's a longer distance and they haven't run in the first 2 races, of course they do, but that's what makes the triple crown and the grand slam such a big deal, because if you beat everyone at all 3 races or in all 4 tournaments you have shown your dominance of the sport for that year. No one is taking anything away from California Chrome just because he didn't win all 3 races, he still won 2 of the 3 races which is pretty tough to do itself, but winning the triple crown is even harder. Perhaps its harder today then it was 30 years ago and there has been some talk about putting a little more time between races to take a little of the disadvantage away if you are running in all 3 races, but there will still be the obstacle that the 3rd race is longer than the first 2 and some horses are better suited for that distance. What everyone is forgetting is that the distance of the race and some other factors like California Chrome getting injured during the race may have been the bigger factors as to why California Chrome didn't win this race, not the fact that Tonalist hadn't raced in the other 2 races.

Coburn has since apologized for his remarks. He knows he was just talking out of disappointment. The triple crown is supposed to be tough, it shouldn't be changed to make it easier just because no horse has done it lately. It's not meant to be fair, it's meant to be an amazing accomplishment if it happens. It's perfectly normal for Coburn to be upset that his horse didn't accomplish the feat, but the feat doesn't need to be made easier so that more horses will accomplish it, that would detract from the accomplishment that it is.

[Phishfan]

As someone who grew up in the saddle, I have to make three small points:

1) Horses reeeeeeally love to run as fast as they can run. Rider on, rider off, on the track or in the pasture, horses love to run like dogs like to bark.
2) Racehorses are treated like royalty. They get the best food, the best quarters, the best breeding mares, etc...
3) If it wasn't for horse racing and rodeos, horses would end up being just another source of meat for humans.

You forgot point 1-A) and I guess you could call it 2-A) also since you think they are treated so great. While they enjoy running fast do they enjoy being shot up with drugs that numb the pain of existing injuries or cause cardiac failures? As for breeding, that doesn't happen until after their career is over and according to the latest Real Sport with Bryant Gumble horse racing averages ten deaths a week (while on the track) in the U.S. so all those horses never get any benefit of breeding with that mare.

[masterfins]

At first glance his argument would seem to make some sense, but you have to look beyond that. The triple crown is very similar to the grand slam in Tennis. The Grand Slam in tennis is 4 different tournaments and anyone can enter the 4 tournaments. If you win all 4, you've won the grand slam. It's the same with the triple crown, anyone can enter the 3 races. If you win all 3 you've won the triple crown. So why shouldn't anyone be allowed to enter their horse in just the race they think their horse has the best chance at winning? There are tennis players that skip grand slam tournaments for various reasons every year, should they not be allowed to play Wimbledon because they didn't compete in the others tournaments of the grand slam? No, that's silly. It's the same for horses, to disallow them simply because they didn't enter the other 2 races is silly. Do they have an advantage because it's a longer distance and they haven't run in the first 2 races, of course they do, but that's what makes the triple crown and the grand slam such a big deal, because if you beat everyone at all 3 races or in all 4 tournaments you have shown your dominance of the sport for that year. No one is taking anything away from California Chrome just because he didn't win all 3 races, he still won 2 of the 3 races which is pretty tough to do itself, but winning the triple crown is even harder. Perhaps its harder today then it was 30 years ago and there has been some talk about putting a little more time between races to take a little of the disadvantage away if you are running in all 3 races, but there will still be the obstacle that the 3rd race is longer than the first 2 and some horses are better suited for that distance. What everyone is forgetting is that the distance of the race and some other factors like California Chrome getting injured during the race may have been the bigger factors as to why California Chrome didn't win this race, not the fact that Tonalist hadn't raced in the other 2 races.

To more accurately compare the Triple Crown to the Grand Slam of Tennis, you would have to bunch the four tennis tournaments over the course of six or seven weeks, instead of the current 9 month span.  If you did that I'm sure many tennis pro's would be complaining.

Unfortunately you really can't blame horse owners for skipping the Preakness, as its only two weeks after the Derby; and it could result in injury to a very valuable horse.  A small change to the racing schedule is probably overdue; perhaps adding two weeks (so three weeks between Derby & Preakness and four weeks between Preakness & Belmont).  This would still be a short time table, as typically horses have a four week break between races; and it doesn't change the fact that the Belmont is a long race.  It would be safer for the horses, and still be a very difficult feat to accomplish.  I don't think they should ban horses just because they didn't race in all three.

[Sunstroke]

You forgot point 1-A) and I guess you could call it 2-A) also since you think they are treated so great. While they enjoy running fast do they enjoy being shot up with drugs that numb the pain of existing injuries or cause cardiac failures? 

I personally enjoy the occasional pain-numbing drug myself...

As for breeding, that doesn't happen until after their career is over

Talk about your retirement incentives.... "Live long enough to retire, and you finally get to have sex!"

[Phishfan]

I personally enjoy the occasional pain-numbing drug myself...

Who hasn't but we have a choice. And seeing and knowing people that have enjoyed them more than occasionally, I know how bad they are.

[Sunstroke]

Who hasn't but we have a choice.

We also have a couple of things that horses lack, like thumbs and the ability to manufacture drugs to numb our pain. Thank God that horses have us to look out for them...

[CF DolFan]

In this day and age of the specialized athlete, it will be harder than ever to have another triple crown winner. It may happen but they will be fewer and farther between as each horse is specifically trained to win a different race. 

When is the last time you saw a pitcher pitch 15 innings? Everyone has their own specialty so that is even difficult for a pitcher to even pitch 9 innings.

[Pappy13]

To more accurately compare the Triple Crown to the Grand Slam of Tennis, you would have to bunch the four tennis tournaments over the course of six or seven weeks, instead of the current 9 month span.  If you did that I'm sure many tennis pro's would be complaining.

Um, no. First off the tournaments themselves last a week or so, not 3 minutes and the winners play 5 or 6 matches over that span that last a couple hours each. You're point is valid, but you've gone way overboard on your analogy. Yes, they could spread out the races a bit, but I honestly don't think the time factor is that big of a deal, it's just that winning 3 races back to back to back is considerably more difficult then winning back to back races especially when the last race is a longer distance.

[RichThrawn]

Um, no. First off the tournaments themselves last a week or so, not 3 minutes and the winners play 5 or 6 matches over that span that last a couple hours each. You're point is valid, but you've gone way overboard on your analogy. Yes, they could spread out the races a bit, but I honestly don't think the time factor is that big of a deal, it's just that winning 3 races back to back to back is considerably more difficult then winning back to back races especially when the last race is a longer distance.

What they need to do is shorten that distance to match the others. If tennis courts and football fields have standards for length, so should a horse race track