OGTEleven

It is so hard to believe it was that long ago. It had an such a lasting impact on America on all of us as individuals. The song in my link was written about the people making calls from the towers or plane(s) to say goodbye because they knew their fate. Those stories and recorded calls, while incredibly sad to hear, also helped me realize the almost universal desire of all of us to say things that too often remain unsaid.

I like Henricksen too. i also like a guy named Peter Stormare who I think is very underrated and Peter Sarsgaard who I have seen do some very good work along with having some bad roles. Neither of those guys fit any of the characters described.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/lou-gehrig-speech-75th-anniversary-mlb-new-york-yankees It's a baseball player with a terrible disease giving a speech, but it exemplifies so many things about America. The will and determination to carry on, the freedom to do what you love and the appreciation of what others have done to allow that freedom to you. The humility to realize that despite whatever obstacle is in front of you, there is still much you have. Although this was about one loved person, it says a lot about what the American system has afforded us all.

He is my all time favorite player. He took the hardest task in sports and made it look so easy. He was always looking for ways to improve, even after establishing himself as an all time great. He was so consistent and confident, and never seemed arrogant. I feel privileged just to have been able to watch his whole career. His lifetime average facing Greg Maddux was .415 and Maddux never struck him out. Link is to a cool audio. http://blogs.marketw...oogle_news_blog

I strongly suspect that Clement mapped out his strategy for getting Tonalist back to the races long before the Kentucky Derby was run. I'm equally convinced he developed this strategy in line with what he thought was best for the horse's health and provided the most likely set of positive outcomes (i.e.. Running well in the Peter Pan and winning the Belmont). It is silly to expect him to adjust his plans after watching the Kentucky Derby so he could be perceived to be more fair in the eyes of some crazy owner of a different horse. I don't dispute that but I fail to see how it relates to Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed. I think the Belmont actually serves as a tool to demonstrate the harm that has been done to the breed by the last few decades of breeding focused on speed. I don't think it is the Belmont that needs to change, but the breeding. If you carry your theory forward, the Breeder's Cup Dirt mile will be the most prestigious race in America in 25 years. I don't want to see that happen. The pendulum can swing back fairly easily by importing a prominent European sire or two (or 20) over here. I don't see it happening yet though. Losing Animal Kingdom as a sire to Australia was a big blow. I think Baffert could be right about SC and think Smarty Jones' jockey made an error in moving too soon as well. I'm confident there will be another TC winner. You spoke about Rachel's baby the other day. I just saw an article about Cozmic One (another stupid name) who is Zenyatta's baby. He just got sent to Shireffs at Belmont. If they race each other it should be fun but I don't see them a some sort of super horses on mom alone. There is always a lot to prove. As for this year's 3 year olds I see them as an ok crop. It will be interesting to see Honor Code, Top Billing and Shared Belief when they really get a race or two under their belts. I like Tonalist and Medal Count moving forward but the one I think could be the most interesting if and when he matures is Bobby's Kitten. He could be anything. No guarantees at all but his upside is really high.

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.

Can we still consider them great achievements?

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 am not a huge Andrew Beyer fan but here is his article, partially on the subject. 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.

No offense but this post and your others before it show that you know very little about horse racing, which probably means your ideas to improve it have little merit. The suggestion that Secretariat won because he had it easy is stupefying. I would categorize Sham as significantly better than Chrome and I think very few would argue. Still, that is pretty meaningless because Secretariat's Belmont crushed everything before or after it. Bob Beamon times 10. If there were a thread about cricket I would refrain from telling everyone how to improve the game.

I'm pretty sure the reason that hasn't been tried before is because it is a stupid idea. How could you ever force the losing horses from the first leg to compete in the second? The third? How does each race build its own status as a Grade 1 race?

I don't even understand what you wrote but keep in mind that there is no one governing body over horse racing. There is no "they" to do whatever it is that you are proposing. Other than that, I'm sure it is a great idea.

That has simply not been true for a long time now. The explosion of the Kentucky Derby into a 20 horse bonanza eradicated anything resembling that. I have seen too many horses die on the track under the best of conditions to take the above seriously. I have come to the realization that you have been trolling for the second half of this thread. Congratulations on fooling me for a while. California Chrome is nothing close to a super horse. The rest of his career will make this obvious. He will be anywhere from decent with a few more wins in mid-tier stakes races (my guess) or competitive in the upper echelon for this year and next (I'd bet against that). Both Tonalist and Medal Count, along with the previously injured Honor Code, Shared Belief and possibly Cairo Prince and Constitution will probably prove superior. As for horses training and then racing? That's is how it is done in everything from a maiden race to a Stakes race.

Something different? Yes and no. The races are still being run as individual races. The notion of tying them together would have been as absurd, idiotic and abusive to the horses in 1949 as it is in 2014. The biggest difference is that most years nowadays you see 20, or nearly 20, horses in the Derby. I am not aware of whether there was a limit lower than 20 in the past, but owners of horses who were not good enough limited themselves. With 20 horses in the Derby, the best horse wins a lot less frequently than it would in a more traditional 12 horse field. Math says that this makes a TC more difficult. If someone were to make an argument to limit the Derby to 14, I might think that was ok (I haven't thought about it that much). On the other hand, limiting an owner's ability to enter a horse in a specific race because he had not run in a previous specific race is self destructive to that race (in this case the Belmont) and to racing in general. Your doubling down on the stupid comments about a fresh horse beating Secretariat are still wrong. And in fact sometimes owners won't enter certain races because they know they will be beaten. There was simply no one in 1973 that was going to beat Secretariat and no context other than what you saw on video is necessary. Below is exhibit A of the evidence that sometimes owners wait for more winnable races. It is a rare and extreme example, but it is still valid. These are incredibly ignorant comments regarding the training, racing, and health of horses.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I only go back 30 years because of the date of my birth (well, maybe a little more than 30 years as I am a bit older than I actually realize). I don't need to make charts and graphs because I have followed the sport and I understand it in detail. I also don't need to have charts to tell me Tony Gwynn was a good hitter because I followed his career. If you want to find out why you are wrong (well, one of the hundred reasons anyway) then you go and make the charts. To suggest Evans is embracing some sort of spoiler role or is out for revenge is simply idiotic. I'd like to pick a softer word to use there (like naive, or uninformed) but those would be insufficient. Evans entered Tonalist simply because he was ready to contend in one of the most important races in the sport. You are upset because the owner of a horse acted in his own self interest? Other than the horse, whose interest was he supposed to act in? Someone who wants a watered down achievement? Then why not just name every year's Derby winner the Triple Crown winner because everyone wants it to happen? Maybe the entire NFL should lay down for the next two years so the Seahawks can have a threepeat. 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? And what was going on between 1948 and 1973? Was that chicanery too? California Chrome is not a Triple Crown winner because he did not winn all three races. Period. It is not because of a conspiracy. It is not because someone cheated. It is because he lost the Belmont. Good article Before Chrome's loss and the subsequent rant, I had never heard anyone complain about new shooters in Triple Crown races. Ever. This includes the owners of Spectaular Bid, Pleasant Colony, Charismatic, Silver Charm, War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones or Big Brown, all of whom lost to new shooters. It also includes owners of Alysheba, Sunday Silence, and Real Quiet who lost to old shooters. It also includes the winners of the Preakness and Belmont who lost the Derby or winners of the Derby and Belmont who lost the Preakness. But don't let that stand in the way of Chrome's owner wanting to change the entire landscape of the sport and call everyone a coward. Would a brave Evans have run a sick Tonalist in the Derby and risk the horse's life? Another point of note is that if you lined up Spectacular Bid, Pleasant Colony, Charismatic, War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Big Brown, Alysheba, Sunday Silence and Real Quiet in a strting gate, most of the ones who lost to the new shooters would be the long shots in the race. Certianly Funny Cide, Charismatic, War Emblem and Big Brown should be 20+-1 in that race. Spectacular Bid would probably be favored or close, Smarty Jones would be a contender and Pleasant Colony would be about 10-1. Spectacular Bid had an excuse in his Belmont (stepped on an industrial safety pin) as did Smarty Jones (poor ride by the jockey). Pleasant Colony lost to Summing not because he was a new shooter, but because he got away with a slow pace. Alysheba and Sunday Silence would be second and third choice with Real Quiet a fringe player. California Chrome? 15-1 if I'm being very generous. 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. Please just stop. Coburn considered every horse except Ride on Curlin and General A Rod to be cowards. He wanted the TC handed to him. Sorry but no. And really just stop with the fresh horse vs. Secretariat angle. No horse in history had come within 20 LENGTHS of that performance and no horse since (41 years) has come within 12. Old shooter, new shooter, or shot out of a cannon, every horse in the history of the world would have lost that day except one. Secretariat.

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.

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.

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.

I hate to disagree so vehemently but this entire conversation brought up by the owner of California Chrome is wrong and ridiculous. First of all, The Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont are three separate, prestigious Grade 1 races. Each has its own tradition which is over 100 years old. Each has a high purse which offers owners a return on their substantial investment in the game. Each has its own meaning to future breeding rights. The Triple Crown is simply a title given to the three race combination. It is not a singular event and never has been. There have been horses that have individual specialties that fit each of these races every year that I have watched it for the last 30 or so. These horses are now to be excluded because one horse failed at the 2014 Belmont? The owners' complaining about how it isn't fair to the horses is far off base. In fact, the requirement to run in the Derby and the Preakness as a prerequisite for the Belmont would be grossly unfair to the horses. However powerful they may be these are delicate animals and forcing them on a schedule of 3 races in a 5 week span is absolutely ludicrous. The fact that he even brought this up as a topic just blew my mind. Every owner and trainer should do what is right by the horse. If he isn't ready for the Kentucky Derby (not quite there maturity wise, coming off a fever, coming off an injury, or a thousand other reasons) but is ready for the Belmont, he should run in the Belmont. Period. If a trainer pushed a horse to the Derby when he was 90% and the horse suffered a fatal injury, what would the story line be? If this owner's argument is ever taken seriously in any way, it would be a horrible shame. CC's owner came into today looking like a small time working class hero and would have left the same if he were gracious in defeat. Instead he called Mr. Evans a coward. I can assure you that Mr. Evans has forgotten more about horses, horse racing and the industry than this guy will ever know. His statements immediately went to the top of my list for most unsportsmanlike things I have ever seen. I hope he profusely apologizes and says the emotion of the moment got to him. I though NBC handled it almost as poorly as the owner. The interviewer kept asking for more which was bad enough. Costas bringing it up in the winner's circle with the winning owner and the governor there was horrible. Let them enjoy the moment this guy has worked for decades to see. This is the Sport of Kings, not some reality show Bob.

Agreed on Real Quiet. To me he was just a cut (or two) below Easy Goer/SS. Animal Kingdom is another one even though he won just one TC race. It was a true shame to lose him as an American stallion. He had very intriguing lines and could have offered a lot to the industry. I see his potential as being like a Kitten's Joy but for both dirt and turf horses. As for Jess's dream I am not following yet. I loved Curlin and Rachel but any foal is a hit and miss proposition. Also I entered the naming contest for the horse and they go and name it Jess's Dream. I get why, but then why have a contest? I can't share the name of my entry because I am saving it for when I own a horse (two days after I hit the lottery). On name alone the horse would be destined for greatness.

I was a big Easy Goer fan and somewhat of a Pat Day fan, but they did not go well together. Day got him beat in the Preakness (probably) and the BC Classic (absolutely). Spectacular Bid and Alysheba were both Great. I think Bid was better. My favorite horse ever was Java Gold who was a 3 year old late bloomer during Alysheba's year. I attended the Travers that year which had Polish Navy, Cryptoclearance, Gulch, Bet Twice, Alysheba and Java Gold (winner). Now that was a race and a great year for 3 year olds. I was not a Big Brown fan at all and think of him as a symbol for what has gone wrong with racing over the past few decades. Although he had stamina on the dam side, there was none at all in his sire line until a few generations back and even those were better milers. Danzig was a sprint sire who produce Boundary who was a sprint sire who produced Big Brown. He was never meant to try a mile and a half. That Belmont field he faced was amazingly weak. This year's is far better and can challenge Chrome, but he has definitely been up for the challenges so far.

This was the single biggest anomaly of which I am aware to ever occur in sports. It is not just the distance by which he won, but the time in which he ran it. At that time, I believe it was more than 2 sends faster than any other mile and a half race in the history of racing. This means that the second best race ever run at that distance would have produced a horse 13 lengths or so behind Secretariat. 41 years later it is still more than a full second faster than the second best time ever. It would be like someone hitting a 700 foot home run or kicking a 94 yard field goal. Or maybe a better example is if Roger Bannister ran a 3:40. California Chrome is good. His story has some similarities to other great horses. He is no Secretariat, but that is not really a knock on him. He has caught a few breaks this year because some other very good horses fell off the trail before the Derby. There are a few threats tomorrow. Personally I think Tonalist, Wicked Strong and Medal Count and major long shot Matuszak are possible upsetters. In the long run I think Tonalist and Medal Count will prove to be very good. Tonalist is still inexperienced and Medal Count may end up better on grass than dirt. I'd sort of like to see him do it but would love to see another Secretariat come along some day, or at least another Affirmed. There are some very good horses over the past 15 years or so that have whiffed in the Belmont after winning the first two. It is a grueling task. Alysheba, Smarty Jones and Silver Charm come to mind. Going back further even Spectacular Bid succumbed. CC is no Spectacular Bid. I also think there were two real Triple Crown horses since Affirmed but they had to run against each other and that stopped them both. Easy Goer and Sunday Silence.

Here's another. There is also a nice live version available on Youtube. I don't know if the original is really a classic but it is well known.

I will pray for you and your wife. When you think of what your wife has meant to you, truly meant to you, reverse it, and that is what you meant to her. Your advice is good for all of us but don't have a big bag of regrets, because every day you were on a trip with your wife that was far more important than any vacation or planned event. Every person who has ever lived could have done one more thing, or corrected one more mistake, or said something differently. We should all strive for these things every day, but the best we can do is to get closer to that perfection. None of us can ever achieve it. You mustn't judge yourself against that standard. Without even knowing you, I can tell from these posts that your wife has a good husband. The little moments, the dish washing, snow shoveling, grocery shopping tend to be the boring parts, but they also tend to provide little surprises or laughs that we all remember with our loved ones. Even when they don't, the time itself helps build the foundation or roots for all of those things to grow. Vacations, events and trips are important and memorable, but they are nothing without that foundation. The foundation is what is most important and what will last in your heart. I believe that the pain you feel is a reflection of the love you have. That love can't be taken away by the pain, time, or even death. It is yours and hers. Without that love, we wouldn't feel the pain. Let the pain remind you of the love. Your promises to her that everything would be ok weren't lies. It will be. Maybe not in ways that anyone understands, but it will be ok. I don't feel qualified to offer advice on how you go on, but I would say that using the foundation you have built together can help you and others. In the end, the love that you built is the true foundation. I believe that love can endure as a foundation even after the people who created it are gone. Everything we all do has an impact on others. Make use of your foundation to have that impact be positive. That doesn't necessarily mean do charity work every day or visit the elderly or give away your money (although it does for some people). Be you, find your way. Use your foundation. And take your time. Know that even the little things like posting on a Bills web site, or holding the door open for a stranger, have an impact. Not everyone will know the foundation from which your positive impact comes, but in a small way, it will help them build their own foundation. There has been so much good advice in this thread that I think everyone has been able to absorb something from it. I know I have. I haven't experienced what you are or lost a parent like others have mentioned. I hope I remember this thread if and when I go through this. We all owe you thanks for sharing your personal story because I'm sure we have all benefited from it in some way. I just changed my signature line to a lyric from a favorite song of mine. The line always hits me because I think it is about everyone and what we all can be for each other in ways large and small. Thank you for bringing this to us and helping us all think about what is important.

I have been meaning to post this for a while, but I knew it would be long and I needed to find time. Thanks to the word insober (easily remembered) in the title, finding the thread was easy. I am heavily biased as he is my favorite musician ever, and he is generally held in high regard, but I am convinced Mark Knopfler in incredibly underrated. This includes his days with Dire Straits, his solo work during that time and especially his solo work post Dire Straits. He is most known for his phenomenal and unique guitar playing, which I still think is underrated as he plays every guitar type and style imaginable. What seems to go unnoticed is general musicianship. He is known as a rock star, but has many fantastic songs that could be classified as Rock, Gospel, Blues, Country, and several other genres. When you listen a few times you realize the relative ease with which he masters all of these styles and the respect with which he plays them. His songs have such staying power for me that I often find myself re-discovering old ones that I had almost forgotten and finding out that they become among my favorites when I give them a good listen. In his whole library I find maybe three or four songs that I don't like as much and they are typically the ones that are meant to be funny. "Money for Nothing" is not a bad song, but was overplayed and maybe his best known song besides "Sultans of Swing". That is a shame. His greatest talent in my opinion is as a songwriter. Yes, that is even over and above his guitar skills. From the beginning with songs like "Lions" and "Wild West End" I found many of his songs to be very unique. His latest CD has "Dream of the Drowned Submariner" and "Yon Two Crows" which I find to be so different in style or lyric that I'm not sure I've ever heard anything quite like them. Many of his songs are about people; some famous, some just regular people, but they always have a different way of showing the dignity of that person without being pretentious. It doesn't matter if it is someone real, like Ray Kroc or Sonny Liston, or someone imagined like the divorced man in "A Place Where We Used To Live" or the traveling gospel singers in "Baloney Again". Even the dignity of a ship in "So Far From the Clyde" is something he describes perfectly. He seems to be able to tell a story about anyone to which anyone can easily relate. I would recommend listening to the spiritual "In the Sky" a few times or "Piper to the End" which is about an uncle he never met who died in WWI. He also did some of his best work without using words via soundtracks. The two most famous are probably "The Princess Bride" and "Local Hero, but there are several others. So many individual phrases in his songs stick with me. "You can fall for chains of silver, you can fall for chains of gold, you can fall for pretty strangers, and the promises they hold...."; "Too poor to be wasteful with pity or time"; "Generations toiled and hacked....for a pittance and black lung". I find amazing lyrics like this in other songs too, but I find scores in Knopfler's songs and most are very direct and personal, not abstract like the songs I love from Yes or Pink Floyd. I don't know how anyone could write a song about 9/11 but his "If this is Goodbye" was written for the victims who placed phone calls to their loved ones when they knew they were going to die. As if "My famous last words, are laying around in tatters...." weren't brilliant enough on its own, he wrote it for the voice of Emmylou Harris. It appears on a CD of duets he made with her that is definitely worth a listen if you haven't heard it. His collaborations are a who's who: Tina Turner, Bob Dylan (Knopfler produced Infidels), James Taylor, Emmylou, Van Morrison, Chet Atkins are among the more famous with Ruth Moody, Pieta Brown and Bap Kennedy being some of my favorite "non-famous" types. His songs have been covered by: Mary Chapin Carpenter, The Killers, The Indigo Girls, Kenny Rogers, The Judds, Metallica, Randy Travis, Trey Anastasio, Art Garfunkel, Shooter Jennings and.....The Everly Brothers. That's not a bad list. I know a lot of people like him, but I don't think he ever really received the icon status that he deserves. I doubt he cares. I don't really either, but I think the people that have overlooked his music have really missed out. And again I don't care, but the Rock and Roll hall of fame is a joke. I listed a lot of songs and wanted to link one that was relatively unknown but what the heck, this one kicks in at 0:11 so I guess that makes the most sense:

I agree with the people who said that the reality of his mom dying probably hit home quickly after he traveled back from Jacksonville. Without practicing at least for the beginning of the week I can't see how he would be expected to play. I really hope they keep Stevie. He has shown he can be very productive and this year was spent with a rookie QB who missed several games due to injury. He has personality, which this team desperately needs. If it were up to me, he'd stay.