BuffaloBillsForever Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) I believe Medal Count was in all 3 races as well. Medal Count sat out Pimlico. The only horses that ran all 3 legs of the triple crown besides Cali Chrome where Ride On Curlin and General A Rod. The comments from the co-owner sound like sour grapes to me. Edited June 7, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I believe Medal Count was in all 3 races as well. Medal Count skipped the Preakness to freshen up for the Belmont. I wont say the owner was whining. I think he has a point. I always viewed the triple crown races as a big test of endurance. In 1997 Silver Charm and Free House raced all 3 as did a few others. Captin Bogit one of the main contender raced in the derby and preakness and surely would have saddled up for the Belmont if not for I believe an injury. Not sure why Touch Gold did not enter the derby? He did mix it up in the Santa Anita Derby with Silver Charm and Free House and enetered the Preakness and Belmont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 I understand how tough the Triple Crown stretch is on the animals...that's why only 12 horses have won it in 140 years; it takes an exceptional horse. California Chrome wasn't exceptional. The closest I've seen in my lifetime have been Sunday Silence and Charismatic--the latter, I believe, would've won had he not rolled his ankle on the stretch of the Belmont. There's always next year--Jess's Dream perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 It's supposed to be exceptionally difficult to win a Triple Crown, it's the ultimate accomplishment. If you can't beat all comers regardless of what races they have run or not run, you're not a legendary horse and not deserving of a TC. And that's why Coburn is dead wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I believe Medal Count was in all 3 races as well. And Medal Count was 3rd. Cali Chrome did slow to a dead heat 4th... If it was between the two, MC & CC... You know CC would have had gas in the tank... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I understand how tough the Triple Crown stretch is on the animals...that's why only 12 horses have won it in 140 years; it takes an exceptional horse. California Chrome wasn't exceptional. The closest I've seen in my lifetime have been Sunday Silence and Charismatic--the latter, I believe, would've won had he not rolled his ankle on the stretch of the Belmont. There's always next year--Jess's Dream perhaps? No argument there that it takes an exceptional horse to accomplish the feat. I thought he had a nice trip today and plenty of racing room turning for home....those 3 races are absolutely grueling. I also understand the owners disgust with the process where horses skip races and then come into either the Preakness or Belmont very fresh and unused. Right now thats the process. The closest to accomplishing the feat was Silver Charm in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 It's supposed to be exceptionally difficult to win a Triple Crown, it's the ultimate accomplishment. If you can't beat all comers regardless of what races they have run or not run, you're not a legendary horse and not deserving of a TC. And that's why Coburn is dead wrong. I understand that and break towards that @ times... But there are still ones that game the system for the money... Why wasn't Tonalist in the previous two? Then on top of it, his owner's dad had Pleasant Colony. Coburn is right in that there is absolutely no honor anymore... Society rewards cowards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 It's supposed to be exceptionally difficult to win a Triple Crown, it's the ultimate accomplishment. If you can't beat all comers regardless of what races they have run or not run, you're not a legendary horse and not deserving of a TC. And that's why Coburn is dead wrong. You are absolutely right. You have to beat all comers regardless of what races they have been in. I dont take any issues with Coburn expressing his displeasure with the process but he did know the process before he got into this and thats the way it is. He is certainly free to express his opinion but the bottom line is his horse did not get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) You are absolutely right. You have to beat all comers regardless of what races they have been in. I dont take any issues with Coburn expressing his displeasure with the process but he did know the process before he got into this and thats the way it is. He is certainly free to express his opinion but the bottom line is his horse did not get it done. Yeah... But years ago, how would the horse racing circle of treated Tonalist's owner for keeping him out of the previous two? I am glad Coburn expressed it. The group doesn't say boo for what Tonalist's owner did... Maybe they should? This keeps up where there is no honor amongst the guys racing, there will be silly changes. Racing could have benefited from a Triple Crown winner. The game is so different in many ways than in the past... Horses are so differnent too. There probably won't be another Triple crown winner ever if the races are continued to be gamed... Edited June 8, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Yeah... But years ago, how would the horse racing circle of treated Tonalist's owner for keeping him out of the previous two? I am glad Coburn expressed it. The group doesn't say boo for what Tonalist's owner did... Maybe they should? This keeps up where there is no honor amongst the guys racing, there will be silly changes. Racing could have benefited from a Triple Crown winner. The game is so different in many ways than in the past... Horses are so differnent too. There probably won't be another Triple crown winner ever if the races are continued to be gamed... I dont believe Tonalist was eligible to race in the Kentucky Derby? It used to be you had to have a certain amount of money earned to qualify. If I am not mistaken that has been changed and you earn points from the prep races prior to the derby and need to have enough points to qualify. I personally enjoy it more when the horses who are good enough to race in these big 3 races take on the task. I think that the purses have increased a lot and the urgency to race in these 3 are becoming less. I guess if I had a horse that was good enough to race in the triple crown races I would want to get in and not manage him like a hot house flower....you may never have another chance to race in them....I have no issue with Coburn expressing his displeasure. But you have to take on all comers regardless. I believe the owner or trainer of Tonalists said the win was bitter sweet. I'm not sure what he feels was bitter sweet? Other than stopping he horse that was trying for the feat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Yeah... But years ago, how would the horse racing circle of treated Tonalist's owner for keeping him out of the previous two? I am glad Coburn expressed it. The group doesn't say boo for what Tonalist's owner did... Maybe they should? This keeps up where there is no honor amongst the guys racing, there will be silly changes. Racing could have benefited from a Triple Crown winner. The game is so different in many ways than in the past... Horses are so differnent too. There probably won't be another Triple crown winner ever if the races are continued to be gamed... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 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. Thank you for defining the word coward in 2,000 words or less. You could have just used one: self-interest. ;-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 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. Good post. Coburn is spewing off at the mouth again about this a day later...I'm sure we wouldn't have heard a peep from him if Chrome won. He would be proclaiming how historic this moment is because of the larger field of 10. The bottom line is Chrome got eaten up by the field and the length at Belmont. The difficulty of the Triple Crown signifies greatness and Chrome is simply not that...bottom line. This guy needs to shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Why even have a Triple Crown anymore? Time to retire it because we will never see it again. I understand the seperate histroy of each race. There will never be an extrordinary horse that will overcome the odds... Unless there is change. It is just like the US holding onto the America's Cup for 150 years... The game is skewed until there was keel change. Chrome got eaten up more by fresh horses than he did the track and field. 'Curlin finished dead last and he ran all three... Again, time to retire the Triple Crown Trophy... It means nothing anymore the way the system is run so separate... Unless a truly extroridnary horse comes along, which IMO is highly unlikely. IMO, I see the breed lines getting more fragile, not sturdier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Why even have a Triple Crown anymore? Time to retire it because we will never see it again. I understand the seperate histroy of each race. There will never be an extrordinary horse that will overcome the odds... Unless there is change. It is just like the US holding onto the America's Cup for 150 years... The game is skewed until there was keel change. Chrome got eaten up more by fresh horses than he did the track and field. 'Curlin finished dead last and he ran all three... Again, time to retire the Triple Crown Trophy... It means nothing anymore the way the system is run so separate... Unless a truly extroridnary horse comes along, which IMO is highly unlikely. IMO, I see the breed lines getting more fragile, not sturdier. Disagree with the premise that we will never see it again. In 1977 it was an 8 horse field compared to 11 yesterday. 3 horses out of the 8 ran in all 3 legs. They finished 1st and 3rd. Colburns logic is irresponsible and harmful to the horses and the Jockey's that ride them. If there is any change that makes sense is leave everything as is and just extend the time period between the Derby, Preakness and Belmont. Edited June 8, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 are there qualifications(ie, points, races won) required to run in these high stakes races or is it simply if you have the money to enter you get in? if the latter, that needs to change Disagree with the premise that we will never see it again. In 1977 it was an 8 horse field compared to 11 yesterday. 3 horses out of the 8 ran in all 3 legs. They finished 1st and 3rd. Colburns logic is irresponsible and harmful to the horses and the Jockey's that ride them. If there is any change that makes sense is leave everything as is and just extend the time period between each race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) are there qualifications(ie, points, races won) required to run in these high stakes races or is it simply if you have the money to enter you get in? if the latter, that needs to change Just money @ Pimlico and Belmont... That is what I am under the impression with. Disagree with the premise that we will never see it again. In 1977 it was an 8 horse field compared to 11 yesterday. 3 horses out of the 8 ran in all 3 legs. They finished 1st and 3rd. Colburns logic is irresponsible and harmful to the horses and the Jockey's that ride them. If there is any change that makes sense is leave everything as is and just extend the time period between the Derby, Preakness and Belmont. I'd go with the extended time frame... T-breds run once a month now... Pushing Preakness into June and Belmont into July may have heat issues... It was already hot in New York yesterday. Maybe KD in April? Edited June 8, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 The bottom line is Chrome got eaten up by the field and the length at Belmont. The difficulty of the Triple Crown signifies greatness and Chrome is simply not that...bottom line. This guy needs to shut up. I disagree. He did not get eaten up by the field or the distance at all. Ride On Curlin however did get eaten up by the field and the distance. Chrome was right there with the leaders throughout beaten only 2 1/4. He definitely can not wear the tag of "greatness". but he is a pretty special horse. Competing the way he did in these 3 races in span of 5 weeks is remarkable. The owner does not need to shut up. The guy is obviously passionate about the sport and his horse. Coburn is new to the sport and this was emotional time for him. Tonalists owner took the high road when asked about it. He did so because he has probably been there already and has had his share of disappointments with his horses. I bet Coburn is not the first owner to express his displeasure with the process, he is just the first owner to have a TV camera in his face and say it. If there is any change that makes sense is leave everything as is and just extend the time period between the Derby, Preakness and Belmont. Definitely agree here. These are 3 grueling races in a span of 5 weeks. Most t-breds race about 10 to 15 starts a year. More would probably enter and others would be less likely to duck them if they had more time to recover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I disagree. He did not get eaten up by the field or the distance at all. Ride On Curlin however did get eaten up by the field and the distance. Chrome was right there with the leaders throughout beaten only 2 1/4. He definitely can not wear the tag of "greatness". but he is a pretty special horse. Competing the way he did in these 3 races in span of 5 weeks is remarkable. The owner does not need to shut up. The guy is obviously passionate about the sport and his horse. Coburn is new to the sport and this was emotional time for him. Tonalists owner took the high road when asked about it. He did so because he has probably been there already and has had his share of disappointments with his horses. I bet Coburn is not the first owner to express his displeasure with the process, he is just the first owner to have a TV camera in his face and say it. +1 I had to. I think they are arguing about rating points in the suggestion box sub forum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Thank you for defining the word coward in 2,000 words or less. You could have just used one: self-interest. ;-P Do you feel the same about a grand slam in tennis or golf? It's a series of individual events, not a chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts