tomato can
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by tomato can
-
-
I think you need to associate with fewer lunatics.
LOL! They moved into the area....I really wish they would move out.
-
Another local enviro posted this on the neighborhood page....Thoughts???
"Although there are multiple variables to consider, this is a highly informal survey: 10th Ward Residents, my professor challenged me to a test, and this is an informal survey: Environmental Justice includes a component of reparations. Should you, as a resident of the 10th Ward, be offered a choice between structural reparations--wherein local corporations who are known to contaminate the environment were to be legally compelled to make corrective (and costly changes), or financial reparations --wherein you were to receive $20,000 just to agree to "live with it:, which would you, as a resident of the tenth ward choose? (As a lifelong resident of the East Side, I already proposed what I believe the results would be, but...let's find out)."
-
This lady is running for Alderman and wants to shut down a local refinery....These folks are something else. Environmental racism?? 50 years ago the entire area was overwhelmingly white (Polish, Irish, Greek, & Italian immigrants) working in the steel mills & the pollution was 100 times worse....
http://priceofoil.org/2014/10/16/subsidy-spotlight-tar-sands-expansion/
-
I forgot to add the man tasered had a warrant out for his arrest on an unrelated case.
And supposedly the city of Hammond has settled the civil suit but I have not been able to verify that...
-
Hammond, Indiana police taser uncooperative man. A civil lawsuit has been file. Link is below.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-hammond-police-taser-story.html
As with most of these incident race becomes the focus. Here is a different take on this issue
Who is right?
-
Thanks for the replies....
@ DCTom most people in my area are not going to put up $15k for this. They will definitely be taking a pass once they hear that.
-
I don't really know a lot about this but came across this today. Is this a good deal or am I missing something? Are we not being told all the details?
-
Democrats are socialists!
Former Senator George McGovern sure pushed a socialist agenda then he left politics and went into business....
-
Lets see who gets the blame for this one........
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/03/toledo-toxins-water/13539145/
-
And possibly funded by George Soros or Tom Steyer. Because you know, billionaire political activists with an agenda and deep pockets are only evil if they're not politically correct
Forward!
I read an article in the National Review that Tom Steyer made his fortune investing on coal. Apparently he cashed out and has decided coal is just awful and is now waging a war on in......
-
Link to the page?
Just because I want to troll those idiots. "The Koch Brothers also want to repeal women's suffrage."
http://setaskforce.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/setaskforce
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fight-petcoke-chicago/568777166541722
The fight petcoke Chicago page is run by SOAR (steelworkers organization of active retirees).
Most of their networking and fear mongering is done on facebook. They take pictures and post them. They are also attacking the railroad industry because they reactivated a rail line to move petcoke by rail cars. The biggest villains of them all though are the evil Koch Brothers. These people are really nuts.
-
Supposedly there is a new movie out The Koch Brothers exposed 2014....our local environemtal morons are trying to get as many locals as possible to there environmental task force office to view this movie. Anyone have a chance to see it?
Here is a few comments from the enviros webpage...........
"The film starts out with a section on the FIGHT TO SAVE PUBLIC EDUCATION--we know all about that here in Chicago. BUT who knew that the KOCH BROTHERS have spent MILLIONS on UNDOING DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATION ON LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS SO WE CAN RETURN TO SEGREGATED SCHOOLS, where children LOSE the ability to LEARN at an equal pace AND TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER!!"
" FILM ALSO SHOWS: Another issue KOCH BROTHERS are funding with MILLIONS OF DOLLARS is the FIGHT AGAINST THE MINIMUM WAGE. ...THAT'S RIGHT...AGAINST IT...I MEAN TO GET RID OF THE MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENT AT ALL. FOR YEARS I DID BUDGETS FOR LOW-INCOME BANKRUPTCY CLIENTS...on what people make on minimum wage you can hardly afford more than a MONTHLY: $450 in rent; $350 for a car payment, $50 for car insurance, $50 for clothes (no matter how many people in the family) no more than $50 for phones; no more than $75 for medical and then you have about $400 left for food (for how many people?'
..
-
Wait... wasn't B.O. a commie organizer?
Yes he was. At one time he was organizing out of work steel workers in the area and nothing ever really came of it. The steel mills on the southeast of Chicago all closed up. The remaining steel mills in the area operate over the state line in Indiana which has a more business friendly tax structure. The area community organizer today are mostly made up of environmental radicals demanding environmental justice. The area is around the river used to be an industrial power but today lot of the land sits vacant. Any time an industrial company tries to open up they are met by these community organizers with much resistance. They used there contacts in the media to slam the companies as poisoning the air and water in the area. They run around with petitions trying to get signatures and go all to frighten the residents. The have lobbied the states attorney general to file an environmental lawsuit against the Koch brothers company KCBX who operates a piece of land in the area. The Koch Brothers have spent about 30 million dollars upgrading their property. They have also attacked the railroad for transporting petroleum coke as well and want the trains to be stopped. The sad part is that the area could actually gain some good paying industrial jobs but they work hard to stop it. They are willing to accept low paying service sector jobs and as DCTom pointed out they are trying to shake down the developers to get a piece of he pie.
-
Please define a "community benefits agreement". Your linked article does not refer to this.
Please define a "community benefits agreement". Your linked article does not refer to this.
Sorry about that. I just linked the article about the development. The so called neighborhood community activists want a community benefits agreement. I looked it up because I never heard of such an agreement. It says a CBA is
"A Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) is a project-specific agreement between a developer and a broad community coalition that details the project’s contributions to the community and ensures community support for the project. Addressing a range of community issues, properly structured CBAs are legally binding and directly enforceable by the signatories.
In some cases, the community benefits terms from a CBA may be incorporated into an agreement between the local government and the developer, such as a development agreement or lease. That arrangement gives the local government the power to enforce the community benefits terms"
I was curious if anyone else have heard of these? Were they good or bad? Sounds like a bunch of baloney to me.
-
Are Community Benefits Agreement bad? One of the old steel mill sites in town has been set to be redeveloped. Its a huge piece of land near the lake like 600 acres. A big grocery chain has just signed on to be the first business to begin construction. There is even a big pitch by the developers to land the Obama library on the site along with a school, housing, boat slips, ect. The neighborhood community organizers are demanding a community benefits agreement. There has to be a downside to this??
-
He had not run since Feb 22. Is a prep race not reasonable before throwing a horse into a Triple Crown race? Do you really think this was an evil plan to thwart California Chrome who had only won the Derby at this point?
A lot has changed over the years. If Espinoza had said Chrome would had faced a more difficult trail than Secretariat, I could buy that (maybe), but he said it would prove Chrome was the greatest horse of all time. Evidently he is not aware of Secretariat's accomplishments post Triple Crown, or hasn't heard of John Henry, Forego, Kelso, Count Fleet or many others? Even if he had won Saturday, I could probably think of 50 better horses than his record so far without having to think hard. If he is the greatest of all time I look forward to him easily dispatching Palace Malice and Wise Dan and others later this year. That should be awesome. I hope he goes off 1-9.
There are races after the Belmont.
You weren't but you were?
Agreed on the overall quality of the horses in 1982 and even on the status of Cielo in the bigger picture, but the question is whether or not it was somehow unfair that he ran in the Belmont. It wasn't.
In fact he ran against what was there in 1982, which included both the Derby and Preakness winners plus the supposed super horse Linkage. 1982 had what it had. There wasn't some big horse missing from that field was there? Runaway Groom?
The race was weak only because 1982 was weak. It had all the 1982 players.
Meaningless Belmont? I don't think overblown is the right word for the Triple Crown. I just recognize it for what it is and isn't. It would still be an important achievement and will be again when it is won again. It could have easily been won on several occasions since the last time. I am 95% convinced that if Easy Goer and Sunday Silence were born a year apart they would have both won. When it is won, I will enjoy all of the hoopla like everyone else, but also realize that the winner will likely be very challenged against older horses in the fall of his 3 year old year. The overblown part of the TC is that it is for 3 year olds. Whoever wins will be deemed the greatest ever by a media with the attention span of a small group of gnats and they will all ask what is wrong when the horse doesn't sweep everything that fall. I hope the next winner is the greatest of all time but I doubt he will be.
I'd like to see a horse win the Triple Crown. I would have liked to see Chrome do it. But to win a watered down version by eliminating competitors would have stripped a huge portion of the accomplishment.
The Derby is by far the most hyped race of the year and I enjoy that as much as the next guy, but all three races have great tradition and all have their important place in history. I would not go as far as you did in ranking the Derby so far ahead of the other two. It certainly gets some of that status, but all three are Grade 1's and very important. The Derby definitely benefits from being first on the calendar. As a grouping the Triple Crown obviously has its history. IMO, it is one that should not be watered down so that we can get some false thrill.
I also think the lack of a TC winner demonstrates the poor judgement behind the industry in general with all the speed breeding. There is a place for speed breeding and always has been, but to me it got way out of hand. The trend has not rendered the Belmont moot, the Belmont helps measure generation versus generation and demonstrates how the pendulum swung too far. The pendulum needs to swing back and the Belmont is one of the strongest pieces of evidence. Like I said earlier, I think it is very possible we could see a European waltz over here and take the TC. I'm not sure how many would try because they care about their prestigious races more. We could see a horse that is turf bred do it; like someone by Kitten's Joy.
No not at all unreasonable. Outside of Chrome that field for the Preakness wasn't stacked with a bunch of world beaters, right? Clement is a good trainer could have easily had Tonalist prepared for that race despite not having run since Feb 22. If anything he watchd the Derby closely and figured if Chrome is that good and wins our best shot to beat him would be Belmont so in my opinion he took the opportunist route. Thats horse racing go to the gate enough times someone is going to beat you.
I agree. Even if he won the TC I would not have ranked he greatest all time. I think we both have seen what we would consider better horses in previous years. I was just pointing out that Espinoza is not wrong in saying that the TC task is slightly more difficult today.
I think you get my point. All these performance enhancing drugs and uses of them have gotten more sufisticated and with the amount of money thats on the line more and more are willing to push the envelope to gain that edge.
I agree Cielo should have ran in the Belmont just as Tonalist should have. I think Tonalist should have run in the Preakness but he choose not to, and in my opinion they did not want to tackle Chrome just yet. There was no big horse missing from ther 1982 Belmont, Cielo beat who was in front of him and did it easily.
The Belmont is becoming meaningless in my opinion because horses simply aren’t asked to run 1 1/2 miles anymore,except at the Belmont. It is the only Grade 1 stakes race in America which goes that long. Plus with the breed changing the way it has the race could begin to lose its luster especially if we do not have a horse that attempting to win the TC. I actually believe Baffert when he says if Silver Charm had seen Touch Gold he would have dug in and possibly held him off. I would also like to see it done again but the chances are really slim for a number of reason we have discussed. I also do not want to see a watered down winner. Its to bad they can not make the TC a series of races, I dont believe there would be a shortage of horses entering. I believe you are correct that a European horse is likely to accomplish the feat before one bred here.
-
Tonalist missed the opportunity to run in the Florida Derby (or perhaps another prep race) due to his sickness. Clearly he is a good enough horse to be running in TC races but under Coburn's ridiculous (just give it to 'em) idea, Clement would have either had to push a sick horse to a prep or forfeit running in a race for which he knew he could have Tonalist ready. And your belief about "a little sickness" is inaccurate. Horses are very often scratched from prominent races and have their training delayed for weeks due to coughs and slight fevers. Clement absolutely did the right thing for the horse.
I think the quote above pretty much sums things up.
As for Espinoza's opinion of the situation you'll pardon me if I take it with a grain of salt. I can't find the article but I read one which quoted Espinoza as saying that if CC did win the Triple Crown he would have to be considered the greatest horse of all time. I'm guessing that is the same article you referenced and ran Wed or Thu or Belmont week. Don't you think that undermines his credibility just a bit?
I partially agree but the part you leave out is that for about three decades now, North American breeding has been focused more on speed and less on stamina. I think Lucky Pulpit is an interesting mid-tier sire for a few reasons, but I think I am accurate in stating that he never won past 5-1/2 Furlongs. This trend is most certainly a determining factor in the lack of a TC winner. It is not everything, but it is a factor. Although primarily bred for grass I would not be at all surprised to see the next TC winner come from a European sire line. A turf sire occasionally gets a great dirt offspring and it is bound to happen at some point that a prominent European or Middle Eastern outfit sees the opportunity and grabs it.
Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced (if that is what you just did) is not well founded in my opinion.
Well, Cielo had two races under his belt in May where his most prominent rivals Aloma's Ruler and Gato Del Sol each had only one, but that really isn't the point. You already made my point. Woody Stephens, who in fact did win 5 Belmonts in a row (you say that like it is a bad thing) did not push Cielo into the earlier races. Some may think this was cowardly because they don't get their Triple Crown winner sponsored by Hot Pockets, but to have run him would have been cruel.
But let's go back to 1982 and slap Coburn's restrictions on the Belmont. Taking the horses that ran in the Derby and the Preakness and entered the Belmont would have given the 1982 Belmont Stake a whopping field size of ZERO. Great plan.
If you assume that the runners in the first two would have stayed the course due to their advantage the field would have been Laser Light, Bold Style and Reinvested. I think we did a little better getting to see Cielo.
Instituting Coburn's plan would make both the Preakness and the Belmont restricted stakes races. As I'm sure you're aware, that is a technical term in racing, not just a description. Restricted Stakes are not graded stakes by definition. With fields of zero or three good luck in keeping the ungraded Belmont a prominent American race.
Why do you think they didn't race in the Preakness? He was being pointed towards the derby and sickness caused him to not be eligible. You have a top caliber horse who you had every intent of racing in the big ones. They could have easily skipped The Peter Pan on May 10th and entered the Preakness on May 17th.
That's the article I was referring to. I have no problem if you take Espinoza comments with a grain of salt. I take took them at face value. He knows a lot has changed from years past going into these 3 races.
No I was not Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced. But we all know that trainers pushing the envelope when it comes to these races is and has been a big problem from milk-shaking, blood doping, and use of epogen to gain an unfair edge.
No knock on Woody. He made a gutsy call to run Cielo. I still believe that he was a pretty fresh horses not having to mix it up in the derby and preakness. Cielo was a very nice horse and showed a ton of promise as a 2 year old. He was probably the most talented horse that year. Not to knock his Belmont win but no one was at all excited about that field, some considered it to be a weak field.
I am not advocating for Coburns plan because its not going to work. You laid out plenty of reason's why. Many which I agree with. I also agree the whole triple crown thing is over blown. The grand daddy of them all is the Kentucky Derby and Chrome won that convincingly. He followed that up with a nice win the Preakness. I think he should have shut him down at that point. Why risk the health of your horse for a some what meaningless Belmont? He came out of the Preakness nice and healthy. There focus should have been on the Breeders Cup going forward. The Belmont is an anomaly with today's horses being bred for speed.
-
You talk tradition, but have no desire going back 40 years or more? You want to start @ 30 when all the BS started. No cherry picking please.
You gotta be kidding that they were scared of Secretariat. They were all in the game. Nobody would have dreamed of putting a fresh horse in due to the backlash. It was a different era... More honor amongst the kings.
I don't think anybody is saying make it one event. At least to an extent, make it attainable like it used to be. Put the honor back into the loosely constructed trio or don't even offer a trophy for it. Right now it is completly unattainable... It has been that way for the last 35 years... Coincidence you have only been watching for the last 30? The BS started 35 years... Funny how Tonalist owner's daddy owned Pleasant Colony (1980) and was one of the first of 12 to get boned out of the Triple Crown. What's he embracing? The spoiler role to avenge his daddy.
You seen the buzz created by Cali Chrome... It is good for racing... Unfortunately, the sport is declining because owner's game the races for their own self interest. Gee, that's a shock.
That's all that I am saying. Why even have a Triple Crown @ all if all there are is spoilers and no honor among the kings. It is a sport of kings like you said. Time to tie up King John and sign the Magna Carta. The kings will still have power.
;-P
People may say the Triple Crown "has always been that way". But in actuality with today's advancements in breeding, conditioning and veterinary medicine standards, the competition is far more fit and race ready to upset a horse that has been grinding it out during the previous five weeks. So yes only a super, super, super horse would be able to overcome this disadvantage. Until then the opportunist will continue to be the spoiler unless the all or nothing (qualify with points for all events) is instituted. People are saying California Chrome didn't have it, have it to do what? Beat 8 horses who were somewhere sleeping while he was out running?
Horse racing isn't only about the money! Nor is it only about false manners. We probably wouldn't want to know why there were so many triple crowns in the '70s, and why there have been none since, but the horses are probably better for it.
-
As a point of clarification the original goal was to have Tonalist pointed toward the Derby but a sickness prevented that. Are people really arguing that the same sickness should have disqualified him from the Belmont?
Would a brave Evans have run a sick Tonalist in the Derby and risk the horse's life?
The linked article, written just before the Belmont, references a lot factors about the dearth of TC winners. The writer spoke to a lot of people that know a thing or two. Not one of them mentioned new shooters. Why? Because the races are individual races and placing weird restrictions on them because of the hot pockets crowd would be a profound disservice to the sport.
Tonalist could not have run in the Derby even if owner Robert Evans and trainer Christophe Clement wanted him to. Under the points system used to qualify for the Derby, Tonalist wasn't even close to making that field.
Most trainers, owners, and jockeys have clearly stated that the time line for the triple crown races is not healthy for young horses yet they still run them....I dont believe a little sickness would have derailed the horse up to this point, a major injury of some sort yes.
Victor Espinoza was asked about the TC prior to the race and he said its almost impossible today they way its set up for so many fresher horses to enter the race. I'd say he knows a thing or two.
-
I have no desire to go back through 40 years of fields with 3 races each year and build some kind of chart for 120 races including new shooters and horses who ran all 3. I've watched these races for over thirty years and I know how things have gone. Secretariat had to beat fewer horses because he scared off the rest. His Belmont validated that fear. It was 20 lengths bettter than any race ever run at a mile and a half in history. It would not have mattered if there were nine fresh horses in that race that day. If anyone can't see that I don't know what more to say.
There is no graded stakes of any sort which requires a horse had run in a prescribed previous race. The grading process looks at race history to determine its 1, 2, 3 or ungraded status. These grades are changed on a regular basis. With fields of 6 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont there would be no justification for these races remaining Grade 1 for long. The entire aura of the TC would disintegrate. I want to repeat that this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. There are many, many reasons beyond the ones I have already mentioned.
I remember a horse that would be considered a fresh horse by the standards laid oout in this thread and by Coburn. I have linked the Youtube of his Belmont.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDuajNdfTek
He had not run in the Derby or the Preakness. So he was fresh, right? WRONG (that is a little throwback for some of the old timers). The Belmont was run on a Saturday. On Monday of that same week, Cielo had beaten older horses at one mile in the Grade 1 Met Mile. He was a 3 year old beating older horses and then running the Belmont 5 days later. This set up Conquistador Cielo as one of the most intriguing stallion prospects in history and paid the owner handsomely (FWIW he turned out to be just an above average sire). By Coburn's ridiculous new set of standards, he would have been inelgible for the Belmont because he would have been considered fresh and the owner would have forfeited his hadsome ROI.
That was actually a pretty interesting year. The Derby winner, Gato Del Sol sat out the Preakness because there was a heavy favorite by the name of Linkage. Linkage was defeated in the Preakness by a horse name Aloma's Ruler. Later in the year I attended the Travers which featured all 3 of the TC race winners. Guess who won? None of them. Races are individual and need to stay that way. The Triple Crown links these three races in an unoffical manner only. It comes off as one event due to the history and the hype. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it as much as the next guy, but officially making it one event would be a huge mistake.
Lets not make it appear as if he had been racing all along. Conquistador Cielo had given warning that he was something special when he was clearly the best 2-year-old in New York until he fractured a small bone in his shin. That injury laid him up from last August until February the following year. He ran well in two allowance races in Florida in February winning the second by four lengths but reinjured his shins and was again sidelined, until May 8. I would say he was relatively fresh since injuries prevented him from running in the derby and the preakness. Initially his trainer who I believe won like 5 Belmonts in a row had no intentions of racing him but the horse came out of that grade 1 Met Mile race so well he rolled the dice a few days before the Belmont an entered knowing his horse had not really been tested and was definitely fresher than the rest of the field. It was a very low turn out for the race only like 40,000 fans showed and the track was in deplorable conditons after a ton of rain.
-
One last point, horses simply aren’t asked to run 1 1/2 miles anymore,except at the Belmont. It is the only Grade 1 stakes race in America which goes that long.There would be no way that these three long races would get crammed into a five-week period if the Triple Crown were being created today. Today’s horses almost always get four weeks of rest between races, and most races are a mile with a few here and there that go 1 1/8 miles. In the Triple Crown series, the distances are 1 1/4 miles at the Derby, 1 3/16 miles at the Preakness and 1 1/2 miles at the Belmont. Coburn's correct is saying there is room for improvement in the rules for qualification but the format of these 3 races in a span of 5 weeks should remain the same in my humble opinion.
-
Although I understand this, I still disagree with it. Part of my disagreement is based on tradition and keeping that tradition fully intact. The other part goes to the fact that there is no practical way of even getting it done. The three race are governed by three different entities. If Kentucky wanted to move the Derby to the first Saturday in April, they could. Same goes for Pimlico and NYRA (Belmont). All of this would impact the prep seasons at Gulfstream, Aqueduct, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Lousiana, Arkansas and other places. It is very impractical. I suspect that the biggest change of all would be the gradual disintegration of the TC. There would be competitors to the races popping up if the races spread out. A big purse at a race in California may lure horses away because the timing was better for the money available. That in itself would be ok; it has happened before (see Spend a Buck) but the frequency would increase. Racing in general has seen some tough times for a while now. New York and Kentucky are doing ok but I think spreading these race out might just be the nail in Pimlico's coffin.
I remember in the 80s D. Wayne Lukas (who has improved with age, but was a real self centered guy back then) suggested changing the distances to a 1 1/8 Derby, maintaining the 1 3/16 Preakness and 1 1/4 Belmont. This was dumb. Only 10% as dumb as Coburn but still dumb. Lukas' horses had a general reputation of not being get a distance. His suggestion was also self serving.
The game is the game. It is tough. That is part of what makes it great and why true greatness can show itself in the Triple Crown.
Speaking of tradition,in the old days the same horses ran and the fields got smaller. In the Kentucky Derby they would run like 12 horses. In the Preakness about 7, in the Belmont about 5 or 6 horses. All of them the same horses. Now every single race there are fresh horses. In Secretariat's Triple Crown run he had to beat just 5 horses in the Preakness and 4 at Belmont. The last Triple Crown winner Affirmed in 1978 had to beat 6 horses at the Preakness and only 4 at the Belmont. California Chrome who beat more challengers in the Kentucky Derby (18) than Citation faced in his entire Triple Crown campaign (15) back in 1948. California Chrome faced 10 in Saturday's Belmont. Of the 11 horses who have won the Triple Crown none ran against more than seven horses at the Belmont.
-
I don't want to come off as a know it all, but I will re-state that all of these arguments are ridiculous. It is not even something I consider an opinion. It is simply a fact. These are three distinct races. Calling them the Triple Crown is very cool. It will be great to see the next winner and there absolutely will be one. If they implement the rules suddenly advocated by this owner, we will see Triple Crown winners very frequently and it will become meaningless. We will also see many more injured horses than we already do as horses scramble to make it to the Derby when they should really wait.
Between 1948 and 1973 a lot of people thought we had seen the last Triple Crown winner. And look what happened at the end of this wait. And to say Secretariat would have been in danger if fresh horses were being run is ludicrous beyond compare. His Belmont beat the second best mile and a half race ever run before by 20+ lengths. Not the second best Belmont, not the second best mile and a half race that year, but the second best mile and a half race ever run anywhere in the world ever in hundreds of years of racing. The video at the beginning of this thread says it all.
I don't really care to go back and document how many Preaknesses and Belmonts had new shooter entries. This is because it is nothing new and has been happening forever. There has never been and should never be a prerequisite for entering the Preakness and Belmont of having run in the Derby. I am not aware of any thoroughbred race that has another race as a prerequisite. There is some of this in harness racing with qualifiers and such. We do enough to satisfy the instant gratification crowd already. Do we really need to make up new rules for horse racing too? With these rules, the 2014 Belmont would have contained CC, Ride on Curlin and General A Rod. And the Preakness would have been the same three horses. What an achievement that would have been.
The biggest change over the last 30 years or so is really Derby fever. Owners and trainers are doing everything they can to win the Derby. Or maybe just make it to the Derby. This results in some very good horses being injured on the way to Louisville, and many horses being spent after Louisville and before Baltimore. Coburn's solution is to either have these horses stressed even more at an early stage of their 3 year old season or to be ineligible for two important races. And that is because he felt entitled to owning a TC winner. The whole rant is a joke.
I could probably list 100 other reasons (how about the fact that there is no singular body governing racing like the MLB or the NFL) why this won't and shouldn't happen.
Billy Turner, the trainer of Seattle Slew (1977) was quoted as saying that there is not really any way to train for the TC as a whole. He said he knew Slew could win the Derby and Preakness but had no idea about the Belmont. CC is no Seattle Slew and should not be made to look like one by lessening of the of the obstacles to a Triple Crown.
Remember Secretariat's Belmont win was a 5 horse field because it wasn't like it is today, trainers/owners looking for 1 win instead of 3, so they can sell rights to their horse as a triple crown race winner. Some want change because they feel greed is hurting horse racing. Racing in general has seen some tough times, with that being said if the Triple Crown is regularly spoiled by a horse that doesn't run in the previous race or in any of the previous legs of the Triple Crown its going to continue to see tough times. Running for the Triple Crown shouldn't be easy which explains the current format of these 3 races in a span of 5 weeks but a rested nobody can beat the tired somebodys. Look at the finish and you can see the horses ahead of California Chrome were ahead by about what you'd expect a rested horse vs a tired horse to be. There's something to be said about one horse being asked to race three huge races in just over a month and other horses are resting and then enter the next race as a challenger.
-
Here's an interesting idea... It probably may have been studied or the info has to be somewhere. To tie the discussion back to the OP thread title, I wonder how many "track ringers" (ie: Tonalist/Comissioner types) Secretariat had to go up against when he ran the Belmont? In other words, how many fresh horses did Secretariat run against? Was it Secretariat or the horses? Not taking anything away from Secretariat, it was obviously him for the most part, but how many fresh horses were in that race? Obviously, Sham ran all three. It seems Cali Chrome fell right back to where Sham (great race horse in his own right) did... Chrome was dead heat @ 4th. Sham, 2nd @ the 1973 Derby & Preakness, was 5th @ the 1973 Belmont. We also saw what a normal three a month ride did too... Ride on Curlin was dead last in this past Sunday's running of The Belmont. Medal count who ran 2/3 was right in there @ show.
Since Affirmed's triple crown win in 1978, 12 horses have entered the Belmont with a chance to win the Triple Crown. None of those 12 horses have won. The 12 horses that played spoiler and won the Belmont with the Triple Crown on the line 9 have either skipped the Kentucky Derby and Preakness or skipped one of the first two races. The last six Triple Crown attempts the horses that won the Belmont did not run in the Preakness, the race that precedes the Belmont. When Spectacular Bid lost his Triple Crown attempt in 1979 he was beaten by Coastal at the Belmont. Coastal didn't run in the Kentucky Derby or Preakness,that was 35 years ago. Fast forward to today and Tonalist pulled off the same feat.
Environmental reparations....
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by tomato can
DCTom here is the latest from my local enviro lunatics....They are something else LOL
Pope is the current Alderman...
"Funny thing is, the 10th Ward, that's right, our cluster of communities has the highest cancer rate in the midwest--in the entire midwest, the 10th Ward (60633, 60617, 60647) has the highest cancer rate. Although this is not an issue that can be laid entirely at the feet of Pope, the manufacturing industry has been dead in the United States because INVESTORS WANT GREATER PROFITS THROUGH EXPORTING MANUFACTURING, and as industry has been collapsing since the 1950's--every alderman had opportunities to invite economic potential to the south east side. Instead each and every one of them made deals with unions, (ERV), investors (JB) and the machine (Pope) to perpetuate the 10th Ward as a sacrifice zone. Remember our ancestors moved into the region, accepting the risks, to make life better for their children. As the medium for upwards economic mobility imploded, NONE of our representatives fought for a piece of what is coming. Local Agriculture (produce, hemp, and poultry) is emerging as a new industry --and NOW....more than a year after it was suggested, Pope reaches out to Openlands and the Healthy Schools Campaign. So, while Pope wants to reach out to Openlands for Healthy Communities in 60633, he supports KCBX in 60617. He's as fricking fraud that, if he had the best interest in mind, would have acted BEFORE Gary Comer and Lane Tech."