I was hoping to see a Triple Crown winner yesterday. It didn't happen, but I certainly saw a poor loser in co-owner Steve Coburn. I disagree with his complaint. Why should the rules be changed to make it easier for a good horse to win the Triple Crown when it is supposed to take a great horse.

I don't want to have a Triple Crown winner with an asterisk by his name.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/07/...index.html?hpt=hp_c2

The best part of his rant was his wife tugging on the back of his coat telling him to shut the f**k up. He should have listened to her.

The owners may be in the "Poor Farm" if they bet the way I figure they did............

I used to own a couple of race horses in my younger, gambling days. The hobby is not for the person without deep pockets. I didn't have them and quickly found out that race horses cost piles of money, win or lose. I exited the past time rapidly with a few wins, but financial losses. Poker was cheaper, more fun, and more financially rewarding.

These guys, in effect, won a lottery with very long odds when they had Chrome.

They will make millions on their investment and should be happy with that. Of course, if they keep chasing the golden ring, they will very likely go broke.

Saeed's uncle, if memory serves, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on horses with less than comparable results.

I agree with Kensco, he should have kept his mouth shut, but KNOWING that he was going to win the Triple, and then not doing so, lead to some poorly thought out comments.

Horse racing has always been, "My horse can beat your horse at x distance." It's actually a pretty complicated system, but stakes races, like the Derby, Preak., and Belmont, have always been "run what you brung" and let the best horse win. They will never "qualify" horses, the cost of entry is enough to do that. Even tho if you do it early, it is not all that expensive, it is still not cheap, and costs over 50 grand to enter the Derby. That doesn't include training, transport, vet, etc. etc.

FWIW, which is zero, I was hoping Chrome would win with such a fairy tale history, but I told my friends "don't bet on him" the price is way too short and I don't think he will handle the distance well. As it turns out, he may have hurt his hoof in the gate and that MIGHT have affected his final run. OTOH, the winner skipped the Preakness and was a fresher horse. Many, many factors enter into horse racing, including the simple fact that some days the horse simply doesn't have his best effort available.

FYI, Chrome won $80,000 for his tie for 4th place so that probably paid his costs to enter and transport.

quote:

Originally posted by leemar28:
The owners may be in the "Poor Farm" if they bet the way I figure they did............

If they had any sense, they would have bet at least $10,000 on the OTHER 3 or 5 horses who had any chance. If Chrome won, they would have collected $800,000 plus the greatly enhanced value of having a Triple Crown winner, which would be worth millions. Simply no sane reason to bet your money at 4-5 with that kind of a payoff anyway. Even second was good for $280,000 to the owners, minus the Jockey's usual 10%.

Coburn offered a pretty heartfelt apology, I was glad to see it.

I think the fact that he was two minutes from history just got the better of him. He knew he would never be lucky enough to be in that situation again.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...t-tonalist/10224725/

I considered his comments 100% sour grapes. Triple Crown winners competed under the same system and rules and had to be good enough to do it that way. He said Chrome was their target. Well duh--they put up entry fee to win and ALL horses in the race were targets. Now for a question. Chrome tied for 4th. Let's say he was in a dead heat tied for first--would he a be a triple Crown winner?

Seems like they need to change something given that there hasn't been a triple crown winner in what? 38 years.

It should be rare, but not that rare.

Bad sportsmanship, true, but he apologized. I'll forgive him. Not like anyone from BoBo's administration.

If the rules were modified at this point, future winners would not really be accepted. The more rare, the bigger the honor when it does happen.

Carpet

A dead heat for first would make Chrome the Triple Crown Winner. There would probably be an asterisk behind it though. I think it would be pretty cool.

I wouldn't care if there was a Triple Crown winner every fifty years. It can be done and a great horse can do it. It happened seven times in 19 years before, then there was a 24 year gap, then it happened three times in six years followed by a 36 year gap.

Nothing needs changing. When the next horse accomplishes it, that will be something.

There always seems to be a push in sports to make achievements easier to attain. It's ridiculous; like giving all kids a trophy for showing up. What does that teach them about perseverance, practice, dedication? Nothing.

The rant was classless but the apology seemed heart felt.


I don't like racing two year olds.

Welcome to California whine country!