ArmedinAZ
Buckeye
I couldn't get it on TV and when they were posting my ISP went down. :evil: All I know is CC didn't win and all the talk is about the owner's rant....
No comment about the horse race?
- Thread starter ArmedinAZ
- Start date
DA_TriggR4Ruger
Hunter
The guy in the green hat, California Chrome, the horse, I believe was suppose to win . But I called it before the race. The guy in the red hat won. I knew it!
I saw the race but missed the post race interviews. At your mention, I googled the race and saw the interview with owner Coburn.
Wow. Talk about a lack of grace and decorum! Sour grapes! Of course the stakes are high and the odds even greater! It's the Triple Crown, for pity's sake! It ain't supposed to be easy! A fresher horse won. Accept it, bask in the glory that is due a great horse, take your millions in winnings and have a content flight home. Really.
Rather than calling Coburn a sore loser, I'll hope that it was simply an emotional outburst after a grueling and hectic five weeks. Time will tell.
Wow. Talk about a lack of grace and decorum! Sour grapes! Of course the stakes are high and the odds even greater! It's the Triple Crown, for pity's sake! It ain't supposed to be easy! A fresher horse won. Accept it, bask in the glory that is due a great horse, take your millions in winnings and have a content flight home. Really.
Rather than calling Coburn a sore loser, I'll hope that it was simply an emotional outburst after a grueling and hectic five weeks. Time will tell.
Rick Courtright
Hawkeye
Hi,
I watched the race, and California Chrome got a good start out of the gate, but looked to me like he just didn't have a big enough head of steam to keep up with those "fresher" horses. After about a half mile, it looked to me like the little guy was just hanging in there best he could.
As for the owner's coments, they were a bit harsh, even if his point was valid. However, since only one horse can win the Triple Crown in any given year, there's a built in inequity... so in the long run, he might be excused for the emotions running high at the moment.
Rick C
I watched the race, and California Chrome got a good start out of the gate, but looked to me like he just didn't have a big enough head of steam to keep up with those "fresher" horses. After about a half mile, it looked to me like the little guy was just hanging in there best he could.
As for the owner's coments, they were a bit harsh, even if his point was valid. However, since only one horse can win the Triple Crown in any given year, there's a built in inequity... so in the long run, he might be excused for the emotions running high at the moment.
Rick C
Jim Puke
Hunter
Rick Courtright said:
??????????? :roll:
His point is not valid...it was just an emotional outburst (SORE LOSER). Everyone else has played by the same rules and there has never been such a classless assault on this classic quest.
The competition has been the same for decades upon decades and it is what actually defines the Triple Crown and makes it the celebrated achievement that it is.
One of the few areas that Obama has not yet changed the rules to lower the bar for success.
Also, please explain the inequity (def..lack of fairness or justice) in there only being one winner...
Pat-inCO
Hawkeye
You didn't miss anything. :roll:ArmedinAZ said:
Boxhead
Buckeye
ArmedinAZ said:
Just a bit from a whining poor loser.
ndcowboy
Blackhawk
Getting boxed in on the rail really hurt California Chrome. Having to make a move to the outside of three other horses coming down the stretch took more than he had to give.
I was really hoping he'd win. I'm 33 and have not been alive for a triple crown winner.
I was really hoping he'd win. I'm 33 and have not been alive for a triple crown winner.
Robes
Single-Sixer
I was disappointed at the whining.... Belmont is a long course and you have to have the stamina.
The stud fees for California Chrome will still be VERY respectable.. $100,000-plus (and keep in mind, a stallion can easily earn more than 75 fees per year)
The stud fees for California Chrome will still be VERY respectable.. $100,000-plus (and keep in mind, a stallion can easily earn more than 75 fees per year)
wolfsong said:
Yeah, but it's only a triple crown race for the horses that ran in all three of the races. Tonalist didn't run the Kentucky Derby or the Preakness. Thinks that's what Cali Chrome's owner is saying.
Don Lovel
Hunter
wealthy enough to afford a Triple Crown contender? Your spoiled rich kid attitude is ridiculous. Families are losing homes and going hungry in America and you pay out more in specialty feed bills and farrier work for that one horse than the entire population of some small townsfolk spend annually on food. No sympathy here
bottom line the best horse won, after a LONG (mile and a half) race,guess too long for Ca.Chrome, oh well it was fun while it lasted BUT the triple crown is won by the BEST, "over all 3 of those select races"?? horse, after they throw all the other good horse at them and they beat them all,,,,grueling to say the least.....got all the horse lovers hopes up and we see over 9 million was bet on Ca.Chrome???? yikes, and we have world hunger...... :roll: :wink: 8)
MY steak dinner last night was so 'fresh' could still see the whip marks from the jockey :shock:
MY steak dinner last night was so 'fresh' could still see the whip marks from the jockey :shock:
I tend to sympathize with the position that it seems "unfair" to a horse that has run in all three races to be beaten by a "fresh" horse that hasn't. This doesn't excuse the guy's rant, but i can surely understand his emotions. Chrome was good enough to win the Derby and the Preakness, which tells me he must be a heckuva horse.
Not sure I'd call the Belmont winner the "best" horse, just the better-prepared (rested ?) for that particular race.
That said, there have been quite a number of triple winners, and I'd assume many of them won over some "fresher" horses, so it's not altogether an impossibility.
JMHO
PS . . . For those who care, Steve Cauthen is my neighbor. ;)
Not sure I'd call the Belmont winner the "best" horse, just the better-prepared (rested ?) for that particular race.
That said, there have been quite a number of triple winners, and I'd assume many of them won over some "fresher" horses, so it's not altogether an impossibility.
JMHO
PS . . . For those who care, Steve Cauthen is my neighbor. ;)
FastEd
Hunter
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,244
- City & State/Province
- RIVERSIDE, OH, Home of the Air Force Museum
Winning the Triple Crown is a real long shot for any horse.
The Belmont is a mile and a half, designed to make or break the winner, the final test.
There is nothing wrong with The Belmont rules and the fix was not on.
Tonalist was a big healthy horse with a big gate and he had the big kick at the end.
It was a slow field of horses. The winner was four seconds off the record. That's a lot of time.
Calchrome had his shot but he couldn't do it. That's where it ends. The owner made a complete fool of himself. He acted like his horse deserved the race. He should feel lucky he won the Derby and the Preakness with a slow horse...
The Belmont is a mile and a half, designed to make or break the winner, the final test.
There is nothing wrong with The Belmont rules and the fix was not on.
Tonalist was a big healthy horse with a big gate and he had the big kick at the end.
It was a slow field of horses. The winner was four seconds off the record. That's a lot of time.
Calchrome had his shot but he couldn't do it. That's where it ends. The owner made a complete fool of himself. He acted like his horse deserved the race. He should feel lucky he won the Derby and the Preakness with a slow horse...
Another post, disappears. Well, anyway. Ya win the Kentuck' Derby and another biggy. Can't be happy with that ! They let your horsey wear a breathing strip. Didn't have to. The race is two straights and two left turns, over before you can drink a beer. To me, this is BORING. In a few yrs my dog will be eating CC.. Ok, so not really, but maybe ya get the point.
graygun
Hunter
It would have been nice to have another TC champ...CC did well this season.
Rick Courtright
Hawkeye
Jim Luke said:
Hi
Jim, Ale described most of my thoughts better than I could...
As for the "inequity" we need only look at the fact the Triple Crown is a function of one horse running three major races against a number of horses who only have to run one. After the Derby, there can be only ONE winner of the TC each year. So there's no need for the owners to run their same horse in the Preakness. And then even if they do, a different horse can run at Belmont. However, there's no substitution allowed for the potential TC winner. That horse has a much tougher challenge.
Now, that's all within the rules, it's all within tradition, and the fact we have a few TC winners says it's all doable. There's no way I can think of that CC's owner's idea of a "points" system or whatever he was going on about can work in THIS situation. (Maybe he's been watching too much car racing?) The point of entering a horse in a particular race is to win THAT race. CC did just that, twice. Another horse did it the third time. Nothing unfair there.
What this guy's rant seemed to be about was that all the other owners had the choice of entering "race specific" horses except him... he thinks that's unfair. Maybe it is--IF one's goal is to win not only each race but ALSO the TC--but as someone else mentioned, "dem's da rules": you play by 'em or take your horse and go home. The rules are no secret: I'm sure it wouldn't take very long for any of us to get a copy of the rulebook!
Another inequity? After the Derby, HE was the only owner this year who even had a chance at winning the TC--which is the case EVERY year. He sure didn't play up the negative that this one works ONLY for him, now, did he? Have we heard any other owners complain after the Derby that THEY couldn't win the TC that particular year? I don't remember any. This is one of those places one can't have BOTH hands full at the same time... he paid his money and he took his choices. So has every other owner of a TC winner, as well as every other owner of a potential contender.
Such classless outbursts certainly don't look good for the individuals involved. Sadly, they seem to be a more common sight in all kinds of sports these days, but they don't change anything much: at its heart, horse racing's nothing if not a game of money, and this guy has done well so far in that department with CC. He stands a chance to make incredible amounts of money in the future off the horse. Take it and go home, buddy! Get ready for next year... they'll have these same races again.
How often must it be repeated that life ain't fair?
Rick C
"How often must it be repeated that life ain't fair?"
Apparently, very frequently.
:wink:
Apparently, very frequently.
:wink:
Jim Puke
Hunter
Rick Courtright said:
The things you describe, are not "inequities"...they are the criteria for being eligible to compete for and win the Triple Crown...there is a difference. The owners exchange their right to run a fresh horse in order to compete for the Triple Crown...they willingly give up something in exchange for something else...no inequity exists.
bobski
Hunter
classic example between the rich and the poor. the rich just write it off and smile because they can.
the poor blame everyone else for their bad luck.
the poor blame everyone else for their bad luck.
Ray Newman
Blackhawk
I could give a chit less. It was just a very highly betted on horse and horse race that was really important to the tax man....
My only question is historically have the other owners swapped horses after the KD, or Preakness?
In other words, while it has always been legal by the rules, is it a relatively new thing for the other owners to take advantage of it?
Has it become a second sport to actively try and derail the possibility of a TC winner?
If the historical data says this is the norm then it's sour grapes, if it doesn't he may well have a point.
In other words, while it has always been legal by the rules, is it a relatively new thing for the other owners to take advantage of it?
Has it become a second sport to actively try and derail the possibility of a TC winner?
If the historical data says this is the norm then it's sour grapes, if it doesn't he may well have a point.
Jimbo357mag
Hawkeye
I thought it was a good race, no bad starts or break-downs, no cheating or fouls. I was rooting for that girl jockey on 'General a Rod' in the 10 spot a 20:1 shot. He did well till the very end of the home stretch. Sour grapes from the owner after a race is nothing new and I would have thought the folks here would not be bothered in the least if the owner was less than PC. It is a shame that is what makes the news. :D
it is a horse race and the best horse/jockey combo that day won...that is how it works now and that is how it has always worked...for the person that thinks the jockey threw the race, never gonna happen in that race...every other competitor has a second agenda besides winning and that is to help Ca Chrome lose...the way it is. Helluva of a feat to win the first two races...Ca Chrome gets 2 thumbs up for the previous performances.
What is your problem, Jimbo? Are such statements really necessary, considering how much you rail and rant against such trollish and inflammatory behavior? How on earth can you summon up the gumption to EVER complain about being "bullied and insulted"?Jimbo357mag said:
And what the heck does PC have to do with a cry baby horse owner??
Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes"). These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and disability.
Neither the horse or horse's arse owner are defined. Please try to make your statements logical.
Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes"). These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and disability.
Neither the horse or horse's arse owner are defined. Please try to make your statements logical.
Rick Courtright
Hawkeye
Jim Luke said:
Hi,
Jim, the things I explained are what the horse's owner was whining about. At least once I believe I heard him talking about how "It's not fair!" Perhaps you could 'splain it to HIM--you didn't see ME on TV throwin' a hissy fit!
Read my post again and I believe you'll find I'm on your side... ;) But perhaps I used too many words and got tangled up? It wouldn't be the first time, so here's the Reader's Digest version repeated:
"How often must it be repeated that life ain't fair?"
Rick C
Rick, for those who lament that life isn't fair, that very concept is beyond their reckoning. No amount of explaining will ever suffice.
