Fortunately the race is only two minutes long so I haven't invested that much time since May. Now if I would have watch the two hour pre-race, that wouldn't sit well with my girlfriend.

Watching Youtube videos doesn't qualify as a hobby? Oops. :p :o

Quoted from Jay Hovdey's piece in Sunday's DRF:

"Big Brown is as good a 3-year-old champion as we've seen in the last decade."

Well at least he didn't say "the best".

Both Tiznow(2000) and Point Given(2001) would have eaten Big Brown for lunch! Bernardini(2006) would embarrass the 2008 Derby field, and Smarty Jones(2004) was brilliance that Big Brown didn't begin to see in his short career. And, though he wasn't named Champion, there was Barbaro(2006). Big Brown might stand on his tip-toes and punch Barbaro in the knee!

I love Jay Hovdey, but his statement above was driven by the "today", and, in making that statement, he forgot a few horses that might have made Big Brown an afterthought.

All I heard leading up to the BCC a couple of years ago how Bernardini was going to eat Invasor's lunch and we all saw the brilliance of Invasor. You just never know when you deal with hypotheticals.

In Barbaro's Kentucky Derby, the field seemed to be strong with contenders like Jazil, Sinister Minister, Sharp Humor, Sweetnorthernsaint, Bluegrass Cat, Lawyer Ron, and Brother Derek. Perhaps I've missed some others.

Barbaro's victory after watching again was more impressive than Big Brown's victory from the stretch to the wire. I still might argue that Big Brown positioning himself to the stretch from post 20 vs. Barbaro doing it from post 8 is worthy of my continued discussion here. In that hypothetical scenario, I am fairly sure Barbaro would have beaten Big Brown by 2 - 2/12 lengths. If Big Brown was in the 9 post, I think he has a chance to make this an incredibly close race.

Regardless of my comments above, I do have another question in reference to the 2006 Kentucky Derby. Why weren't Discreet Cat or Bernardini entered in that race? If they were, that field would have been completely loaded.

bernardini was very lightly raced at that point, the preakness was only his fourth (or maybe fifth?) lifetime start i believe. he was under everyone's radar until the withers. even had they wanted to run in the derby, he wouldn't have had the earnings to get in the gate.

Great horse, but WAY too much baggage to look past. Is it the horses fault? No. But you cannot just dismiss it as to why the horse doesn't get the acclaim you think it deserves.

BB's win in the Derby was stellar, from the 20. But is it any more impressive or more history defying that a NY bred gelding winning it? Or a horse coming in off a five week lay off? My point is, all horses have sh*t to overcome when they leave the gate, whether they are running in the Derby or in some $5,000 N1Y claimer at Penn National.

Not to mention, BB was what, 2-1? 5-2? He WAS SUPPOSED TO DO WHAT HE DID. He set the bar high, people bought in, and he met those expectations. That's great, but when the money was on the table BB really spit the bit. He wasn't going to get high praise and recognition without winning the Triple Crown.

For two reasons, I think. A) Again, way too much baggage to just gloss over and move past. B) The American public, and racing fans have seen numerous horses rise up, win the Derby, win the Preakness and then not come through in the Belmont. Going 2 for 3 is now old hat. Not that it's unimpressive, because it is...but it's a lot like those triple lutzs in figure skating...at first, it was new, shiny, WOW type of thing, but now, it happens a lot and it's not as impressive.

BB was a great horse, but it's time to move on.