I know he is getting panned on this board and everywhere else, but the owner of California chrome isn\'t wrong. His timing was awful and he came across like a sore loser, but the reality is that his statements weren\'t untrue.
People are saying this race proved Chrome wasn\'t one of the greats like the other triple crown winners and perhaps that is true. But I have to wonder if we will see a triple crown winner. The truth is the breed has changed drastically since the 70s when we had three triple crown champs. The \"win now\" mentality has led to precocious sprint pedigrees with many if not most stamina pedigrees going overseas. One of the results of that is fragility. Another thing is that right or wrong, all the views of the \"sheets players\" about rest are being followed by many trainers. What are the odds that Pletcher runs a horse back in the Preakness after a derby run, if he doesn\'t win the derby? Close to nil. So more and more trainers are skipping the Preakness and pointing to the Belmont. That has worked, what 8 out of 15 years? So we get a handful of talented horses that get 5 weeks rest, running against a horse that is going for 3rd race in five weeks.
Not sure what the answer is. Without having given it much thought before, I had been deadset against changing the spacing of the races. And I still might be, but it may not be as clear as I thought.
Horses in the 70s and even 80s didn\'t have as many of the talented fresh faces to face.
Anyway, thought I would add one post to offset all the negative posts about the owner
Good luck
what happens if you change the rules. time between races and/or distance. then a horse who would have done it anyway comes along and does it? don\'t you taint his or her accomplishment.how many close calls in recent years?you don\'t need a list.
if easy goer and sunday silence were 1 year apart there would be 2 more.look at risen star closed into no pace in derby and was a few lengths behind thats not one you here about because the loss was in derby.the owner is folksy and loved a regular guy. now he\'s got the answer. he wants to use the point system for the derby to determine runners in belmont. how long has that point system been in place?
i also think if art sherman was in stands ( obviously he\'s on the track checking his horse) he would have stepped in front of this guy and changed the subject
yeah, woody stephens barely ever sent in fresh horses in the 80s. This is ridiculous. It\'s not an \'official series\'--he could have skipped the Belmont and run in a Cal-bred race on the same day in June. He could have done a Spendabuck and run in Jersey. Eddie Gregson didn\'t like running back in the Preakeness with Gato del Sol and skipped it. Nobody made these guys run their horse in the Belmont.
I feel bad for the owner being put on the spot by NBC, but the fact that his comments are taking seriously as a potential point of debate or conversation is even more distressing.
how much you wanna bet if chrome was close second in derby and art sherman said to jethro \"lets freshen him iknow we can win can win in bel\" he would say no i don\'t think thats fair
Some comments/rants don\'t deserve offsetting, Jimbo.....and this idiot\'s rant after the race is a shining example. Let the moron get ripped and mocked, he earned it. The most amusing comment was referring to the other horses\' connections as a \"bunch of ***damn cheaters\".....that\'s right, he said cheaters. They cheated. Not sure what can be defended about what the guy said.
Look, there are three big races in the span of five weeks for 3yos. Sometimes a horse wins all three, most of the time they don\'t. Get over it. Just because trainers and owners have recently figured out a better way to win the Belmont, doesn\'t mean you have to change the rules to make it easier for a horse to win all three. What are you supposed to do, space each race four weeks apart? Shorten the distance of Belmont? But no, Coburn did not mention either of those. His gripe was twofold:
A.) Horses who are not allowed to run in the Derby should be banned from all Triple Crown races.
B.) If you run in the Derby, you should not be allowed to skip the Preakness for the Belmont. As he said, \"either all or none\".
Maybe the two single dumbest comments I\'ve heard in years. Wagging and pointing his finger in the camera like a total clown, even adds to the buffoonery. It\'s a shame too; this guy turned a positive, happy, blue collar success story that people can cheer for, into a horse a lot people will associate negatively with now, due to his owner showing himself as a childish, whiny, unlikeable dope.
Bull,
Agreed. The guy was whining and using the word \"cheating\", which is certainly isn\'t.
i guess my point wasn\'t too clear. The point was supposed to be that with the change in the breed and belief in spacing, the 3 races in 5 weeks is a helluva lot harder than it used to be, and MAY require changes.
The number of challengers, and the number of \"fresh\" challengers in particular, is more than it used to be. Maybe that is OK and nothing should change. But how many 10 and 11 horse fields did the Triple Crown winners face?
\"hate \" the dope not the horse..thats what i think you mean
Yes exactly. That\'s what I mean. It is a shame that Chrome, Sherman etc will be lumped in with the negativity that Coburn has brought to this horse. A really good horse, a super nice trainer, but just a total muppet for an owner. The horse has done a lot of good for the sport this year, and it\'s a shame to see it end like this. This horse\'s bandwagon has many, many fewer fans now.....not because of a hard fought loss in a tough, grueling race but because of a loudmouth crybaby who pays the horse\'s bills. Bottom line, as a fan, it must be hard to root for the horse after that idiotic rant.
Speed favoring track surface. Perfect trip. Excellent ride. Nasal strip stayed in place (as much as I could tell and most importantly so did Espinoza\'s).
This is a very ordinary crop of 3 year old horses. Time was about 6-7 lengths slower than the earlier 1 1/2 race and they finished in a bunch at the end. 2 of 3 in the classics is an awesome accomplishment though.
What does the guy want, a 4 horse field in the Belmont -- I know the answer. Amateur guy and his comments are ridiculous. There are enough asterisks in other sports and we don\'t need them in this one.
but what really pisses me off i had a big pick 3 into that race with medal count. damn i can whine too
Agreed Jimbo, but my point was that Coburn\'s \"suggestions\" lead to tiny, uninteresting fields. Think about it, if you were FORCED to run in either all three legs or none, don\'t you think guys will be less likely to compete in any? As an owner, I can promise you I\'d never do that to any of mine. What are you supposed to do, sign a contract saying you will run in all three? What if your horse gets sick or hurt? Now what? You aren\'t allowed to participate in the Belmont because you didn\'t run in the Preakness, whether by choice or by injury/illness? The Belmont will have a four horse field every year if Coburn\'s \"ideas\" were considered. The guy is a total idiot and honestly doesn\'t even deserve any more of my time or attention.
the crybaby doesn\'t pay the horses bills anymore its the other way around.
And I had both late pk4s on the card if Commish won (had them either way, but the price difference was too much to not whine about). Tonalist was much the best today, but I agree, leave the whining to us bettors.....no one does it better!
im glad i got to see nbc tell me 1,000 times how many people bought $2 tickets for mementos and wouldn\'t cash them. guess they were right
lets give this guy a break he was in over his head. whats its idiotic is he causes a debate. ITS NOT THE TRIPLE CROWN IF THEY CHANGE IT.
Classless owners. Glad they lost.
We will see a triple crown winner but first we need a Belmont horse winning the derby and not the vice versa attempt. Afleet Alex was oh so close...Still, why shove the mic right in the guys face right after as opposed to celebrating the victory and what was an exciting race? Give the guy 15 minutes to compose himself (not sure if that would have happened or not). I don\'t remember a big IEAH interview as soon as Brown faltered...?
The owner WAS wrong and his complaint completely illogical.
He was beaten by Medal Count, who DID race in the Derby and was also running in his 4 stakes race in the last 9 weeks, just like Chorme was. And they finished behind him.
So regardless of whether or not you are arguing that you need the Derby points to be in the Belmont or that other horses needed to have the same difficult, tightly spaced campaign chrome did, he is still a loser on both counts there, so the entire argument and rant is clownshoes laughable.
Guy is a crybaby, and I hope he is punished with a long-standing internet meme.
WOW, apparently he is doubling down on interviews today. On Good Morning America this morning, he compared it (rested horses taking on his horse) to playing basketball against kids in a wheelchair.
What a piece of garbage. Probably angry and bitter that he won\'t get to sign his Hollywood movie deal.
The real irony of his rail against the Triple Crown is that Coburn implies that its just not fair to race against the fresh horses because of the race spacing. That was NOT his story last week when he was winning the race, had unbelievable foresight, was making history and was still annoyed with the bad hospitality in Louisville.
You have to enter these races and if Coburn thought he was doing something that was not in the best interests of his horse then shame on him. If he ever thought it was too much for Chrome then he should have pulled back and regrouped for Saratoga or some other meet.
Clement brought his horse along nicely this year and when we wasn\'t ready for the Wood he developed a new goal and got it done - end of story. After he won, Clement was nothing but professional.
Coburn should tip his big ol Cowboy hat to Clement for lessons learned in horsemanship and media relations.
Blueskies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real irony of his rail against the Triple
> Crown is that Coburn implies that its just not
> fair to race against the fresh horses because of
> the race spacing. That was NOT his story last week
> when he was winning the race, had unbelievable
> foresight, was making history and was still
> annoyed with the bad hospitality in Louisville.
>
> You have to enter these races and if Coburn
> thought he was doing something that was not in the
> best interests of his horse then shame on him. If
> he ever thought it was too much for Chrome then he
> should have pulled back and regrouped for Saratoga
> or some other meet.
>
> Clement brought his horse along nicely this year
> and when we wasn\'t ready for the Wood he developed
> a new goal and got it done - end of story. After
> he won, Clement was nothing but professional.
>
> Coburn should tip his big ol Cowboy hat to Clement
> for lessons learned in horsemanship and media
> relations.
Very unfortunately, he has demonstrated again today that there were no lessons to be learned for this guy. He even gave out his phone number on ESPN to anyone who dares to discuss with him being a poor loser. I guess this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
Belmont was sandwiched between the women\'s French Open Final and the Kings/Rangers game. Court and rink filled with excitement and classy performances. In comparison, his behavior made our sport appear to be more similar to boxing and wresling than the other two in the minds of the casual observer. We know better. Hopefully, most turned off their sets right after the race was over.
Funny how they were willing to pull CC if he couldn\'t wear a nasal strip, but we never heard about him skipping the Belmont because it was filled with \"cheaters\".
Before yesterday he was being portrayed as a common man\'s hero. Now he\'s in the same class as Cliven Bundy.
His argument is as stupid as if an owner of a professional sports team complained that he lost the league championship because the winning team traded for a player at the trade deadline. That\'s the real analogy. Fortunately, there\'s never been a team owner stupid enough to say rosters should be set on opening day.
He keeps proving he really did name his stable correctly. I\'m waiting for him to say that only the Derby winner should be permitted to race in the next 2 legs of the Triple Crown.
I too am glad this clown didn\'t become the owner to end the Triple Crown drought. I\'d rather see someone with as much class as his horse win the Triple Crown. If Chrome ever races again, he\'s going to get his ass kicked by Shared Belief & the owner should be grateful Shared Belief didn\'t run in the Triple Crown because if he had, Chrome may have had no Triple Crown race wins.
Right thoughts, wrong approach. Space the Triple Crown races 4 weeks apart, then the Haskell 4 weeks later followed by the Travers 4 weeks later. 5 races in 5 months to determine 3 yr old of the year. Points for participation and performance.
The Triple Crown format changed several times before the existing set up.
Spacing is more fair for the horses and current training/racing patterns.
Interest and marketing opportunities will increase and the Triple Crown will not be easier but more fair and overall better for the industry and the horses. All the other major sports have evolved to keep pace and improve with the changing currents.
Everyone wants a fresh horse these days, no wasted efforts. The early Derby preps are often NW1/NW2 events, then more horses fall off the Triple Crown/ Derby trail without the proper foundation of years past. Racing overall looses a chance for more rivalries and 3 yr olds who become the handicap division horses of the future.
Toppled,
I agree with the majority of your statement. However, lets wait and see if shared belief and chrome face off before declaring that SB is a better horse.
rhagood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right thoughts, wrong approach. Space the Triple
> Crown races 4 weeks apart, then the Haskell 4
> weeks later followed by the Travers 4 weeks later.
> 5 races in 5 months to determine 3 yr old of the
> year. Points for participation and performance.
Just to play Devil\'s Advocate, lets say a 3YO wins Florida Derby, misses the
Triple Crown*races, wins the Pennsylvania Derby and then wins the
BC Classic, beating the best older horses in the country.
I guess then we have a match race between the Triple Crown*points
champion versus the BC Classic winner to determine best 3YO? Cool!
> The Triple Crown format changed several times
> before the existing set up.
> Spacing is more fair for the horses and current
> training/racing patterns.
> Interest and marketing opportunities will increase
> and the Triple Crown will not be easier but more
> fair and overall better for the industry and the
> horses. All the other major sports have evolved
> to keep pace and improve with the changing
> currents.
All the \"major\" sports have central governing bodies.
> Everyone wants a fresh horse these days, no wasted
> efforts. The early Derby preps are often NW1/NW2
> events, then more horses fall off the Triple
> Crown/ Derby trail without the proper foundation
> of years past. Racing overall looses a chance for
> more rivalries and 3 yr olds who become the
> handicap division horses of the future.
Anything that does not involve a colt winning the Derby, Preakness and Belmont
in a five week span is the Triple Crown*, not the Triple Crown.
I have two suggestions. One would be to maintain the five week spacing, but to
move the series back a month. Ky Derby last Saturday in May, Preakness two
weeks later, Belmont on July 4 weekend. Kentucky folks will complain about the
traditional \"First Saturday in May\", but the truth is that the Kentucky Derby
festival will be the biggest event on the Louisville sports, social and
entertainment calendar, even if it is held in November or February.
Second suggestion is a bit out of the box and would unfortunately result in a
Triple Crown* series: Take off three pounds for each Triple Crown
event participated in; under this system Tonalist would have carried 126
pounds in the Belmont, Cal Chrome 120.
It already is the Triple Crown*. The game has changed for years, and this series hasn\'t.
To pretend otherwise is to ignore evolution of the game (for better or worse), increasingly ruin its budding stars and dilute the competition of these races. The TC either tracks the current stakes racing paradigm (as it did years before when those TC winners of yesteryear did their running), or it now represents something other than what was accomplished in the past.
Were Alydar or Easy Goer 3yos in 2014, they would likely not have run in the Preakness and waited for the Belmont. That good for the Triple Crown?
We\'ve watched stake preps for both the KD and the Breeder\'s Cup continually space back from their championship dates. Training, drugs, whatever routinely lead to through-the-top performances and require more recovery. The TC spacing is increasingly more against the standard of practice for campaigning top stakes horses; it thus also magnifies the difference in performance capability between those horses running in all three races vis-a-vis those that don\'t, compared to years past.
You may want to pretend they are running just like they did in the 70\'s, but that it delusion. Keeping the spacing the same as it was when stakes horses ran at those intervals as a matter of routine IMO makes the TC series worse, not better. If you want things to be as they used to be, then we have to change all of it back - and that isn\'t going to happen.
Nonsense. We were a combined less than 3 lengths away from having 5 Triple Crown winners the past 15 years. Sheer luck is the reason we haven\'t had a winner. The spacing is fine. It was hard back in those days to win it too. They went 25 years without a winner before Secretariat. That we had 3 TC winners in the 70s was a total fluke.
Sekrah - this makes more sense than anything else I\'ve heard on this subject. HP
You\'re missing the point. It\'s not about winning the Triple Crown. It\'s about the horses.
I don\'t care how many times the Triple Crown is won, or not won. The post was a response to the notion that if the spacing remains the same that it\'s the same challenge as those who campaigned in the TC 40+ years ago. To believe that is to be in denial over how the game has changed and its consequences to its participants.
Whether a horse accomplishes it or not doesn\'t change the fact that asking for modern-day efforts with old-fashioned spacing leads increasingly to beaten up stars, missing key challengers, and worsens the series overall. It\'s supposed to be the best three year olds facing each other in the spring. When it went to the current spacing it wasn\'t intended to be the survival test to the degree it is today. The downside of holding to traditional spacing is outweighing the accomplishment of winning all three, whenever it happens.
I\'d prefer to see top three year olds running their best efforts against each other in all three races. What we get now are missing challengers and increasingly broken down horses in the finale who have run in all three races.
The mesmerizing thrill of chasing this elusive fantasy is causing increasing collateral damage to the sport, eating its young. What is this, Hunger Games?
It\'ll probably change when we eventually get an Eight Belles-like event with 25 million watching and the Triple Crown on the line.
They sell these horses for 20-40m and retire them anyway. It\'s not like they are going to race long after the Belmont even if they exited the TC better than they went into it.
It\'s fine the way it is.
I\'m sure the owner would love to see a 4 horse Belmont, it\'s what he is used to seeing in southern California on a daily basis.
Just imagine if one of those horses was Secretariat. I wonder what the beaten lengths might have been then.
Turcotte would have had time to dismount at the eighth pole, wait in the mile long line for $10 beer, get on yet another line to place a bet in the 12th, and then get back on big red to win by 50 lengths.
Huh??? They don\'t stick around and one gets paid, so it\'s OK to keep chewing all of them up and spitting them out? Thanks for clarifying your position.
If the Triple Crown as currently run was pitched de novo as a race series in 2014, the spacing would be universally shot down by all aspects of the sport as not good for the health of the horses, optimizing participation in the series and lowering the quality of the latter race (JB has noted before the drop off in performance after a closely spaced race interval occurs in the subsequent race). All the other divisions of racing have rejcted that spacing, despite the opportunity (the relatively pathetic Preakness undercard). It thus fails the test of reasonableness.
But the obsessive quest for just one false messiah and \"tradition\" (defined as whatever yardstick one wants to use - in this case 1969) trumps all that and keeps horse racing\'s head stuck in a dark, dark place.
This quixotic search for the next Secretariat has also increased the possibility for the next Ruffian. Racing will have no defense for that should it occur.