California Chrome's owner just blew any goodwill.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

It's really too bad.
I understand the emotional outburst at first for losing, but to have that little knowledge and respect for the sport, and it's history and traditions is really embarrassing.

There are horse owners from all over the United States who have dreamed their whole lives and invested millions into this game for the chance to be sitting in his position yesterday.
He should have realized that and enjoyed what a special, once in a lifetime position he was in.

Terrible sportsmanship.

At his age he should understand that there are winners and loser's and you should relish when you are on a winning streak and know that the inevitable hard times will come. Whining anonymously on a Selections thread ( Me) is one thing but do to it publicly when you are fully aware that your words are being heard by tens of millions is a different story.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Can they take one of Chrome's nasal strips and use it to sew his mouth shut?

--Dunbar

[TheSpyder]

I am fairly certain he's related to WC Fields!

Same demeanor.

[ArlJim78]

You never see Coburn and Wilford Brimley together at the same time. just saying.

[reese]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Sorry, I disagree. Leave the races alone.

The derby just found a different way to decide the 20 starters. If pimlico and Belmont get too many entrants, they have ways to decide who gets in. As for requiring a horse has to run in one to move on to the next...I find that ridiculous.

People spend far too much time worrying about producing a tc winner. It is not the sole arbiter of what makes a good horse. Its an interesting sideline to some good races.
One thing I would like to see, is a bonus format like they used to have. Nothing encourages people to start a horse more than money

[ADJMK]

Just watched the CBS evening news and guess what was a feature story. Checked the SI site to see the basketball score and guess what was the top story? There are almost 1,600 comments on the story. I don't think horseracing has gotten 1,600 comments on the SI site in total for 2 years. This is getting more publicity than if CC won the triple crown. It is amazing how people that have never ever been to a track are commenting. I am not sure if thats good or bad.

I can't believe that someone in the Sherman barn hasn't told him to drop it and that can he not see that he is making a fool of himself. Are they that afraid of losing the horse?
As much as I would have liked to see a TC winner I am glad he didn't win because this ownership group obviously has no idea . They lucked into a special horse and should be grateful for the ride they had. Just ask the other thousands of horse owners how they would act if they could own a Classic winner.

[ADJMK]

At least Art Sherman knows better


http://www.wdrb.com/story/25722256/c...EE8Fk.facebook

[ADJMK]

Best column written today:


Tonalist missed the Kentucky Derby because he had a lung infection. He was a promising horse -- much more promising, once, than California Chrome -- but he had a lung infection and his owners didn't want to risk hurting that beautiful creature by training him and racing him at every event Tonalist would need to get the qualifying points to enter the Kentucky Derby.

And so one of the most enchanting Triple Crown candidates entering the season was denied that chance, and not because his owner was a coward who wanted to lay in the weeds for the Belmont or was a goddamn cheater who wanted to deny Steve Coburn from turning his 15 minutes of fame into a lifetime of easy living. Tonalist's owners kept Tonalist from running the Kentucky Derby because it was the right thing to do.

Steve Coburn? That dumbass wouldn't know the right thing to do if it walked up to him and placed a microphone in his face.

http://www.cbssports.com/general/wri...ecord-shows-it

[Merlinsky]

Well said, Nick Zito: http://es.pn/1oBCwxJ

They can provide incentives to run in all 3, but as Jeannine Edwards pointed out, it's like the Grand Slam in tennis. Each event is its own thing, each one is special in its own right. You can't demand people/horses enter in all of them.

[tector]

Old farts here will remember Billy Carter (brother of Jimmy Carter). At first he was an amusing cracker, then the more he opened his mouth, the more quickly he wore out his welcome.

Deja vu all over again, as the man said.

[Dawgswin]

Just in case anyone is still interested, here's a link to a better quality version of Coburn's original comments. Looking back on it now after a couple of days I can understand why people thought it was a bit over the top:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuH7FC3R_mo

[Antitrust32]

So Steve Coburn's rant following the Belmont Stakes was very interesting to me. Not because he is right, because he is not right... he's not even close to being right and his entire premise goes against the history and elusiveness of Horse Racing's greatest honor... to win the Triple Crown. What was interesting is that many very casual followers of the sport (non-bettors and people who only watch the Derby or a Belmont if the Triple Crown is on the line) actually agreed with Steve Coburn's opinion. It is telling how people can hear a soundbite and run with it as fact, even though the opinion was not based in any history or education of the sport, it was purely a baseless opinion from someone who was being a bit of a sore loser and has had a TON of luck in the racing business. I assume this happens throughout humanity on many different levels and topics (especially politics), people run with or support an uneducated idea because the soundbite captured their attention.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

So Steve Coburn's rant following the Belmont Stakes was very interesting to me. Not because he is right, because he is not right... he's not even close to being right and his entire premise goes against the history and elusiveness of Horse Racing's greatest honor... to win the Triple Crown. What was interesting is that many very casual followers of the sport (non-bettors and people who only watch the Derby or a Belmont if the Triple Crown is on the line) actually agreed with Steve Coburn's opinion. It is telling how people can hear a soundbite and run with it as fact, even though the opinion was not based in any history or education of the sport, it was purely a baseless opinion from someone who was being a bit of a sore loser and has had a TON of luck in the racing business. I assume this happens throughout humanity on many different levels and topics (especially politics), people run with or support an uneducated idea because the soundbite captured their attention.

Had a houseful (neighbors / friends) all of whom know absolutely nothing about horse racing all say the same thing - They we flabbergasted that a "horse was allowed to race" in the Belmont without having to "qualify" by running in one of the other two TC races. The discussion came about even before Colburn expressed his opinion.

First question - Where did Tonalist and Commissioner finish in the Derby"

Me - "They haven't run in either of the two previous TC races"

Response - WTF??!! Seriously??!! That makes no sense. How is that fair? This sport has some stupid rules.

Me - "Whatever". "Go home".

[TheSpyder]

On NBC Nightly News in one minute

[TheSpyder]

Billy Carter

Thanks for the memory

Originally Posted by tector

Old farts here will remember Billy Carter (brother of Jimmy Carter). At first he was an amusing cracker, then the more he opened his mouth, the more quickly he wore out his welcome.

Deja vu all over again, as the man said.

[ne to socal]

Originally Posted by Cardus

And just as bad will be how I suspect that he will be received when he returns home: "You showed 'em, Steve!"

I can pretty much assure you that didn't happen.

[trackrat59]

I was glued to the TV. As soon as he opened his mouth, I just knew.

It's a shame. A guy like that gets to live the dream of a life time. To react like that after the train lets you off one stop prior to your dream destination?

I would give anything just to ride the train.

[ScottJ]

As many racing enthusiasts know, the concept of the "Triple Crown" did not exist until 1930 when Gallant Fox's three race sequence earned the title based on DRF's Charles Hatton designating him a "Triple Crown" champion. Only at that time was the title back-dated to include Sir Barton in 1919.

The "Triple Crown" has evolved into a brilliant marketing vehicle bringing together the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont Stakes; understand that the title serves to drive the marketing despite being 36 years vacated.

These three stakes are just that : three independently owned and managed properties offered by three different racing associations. Any assertion that these three races should be an "all-in" sequence undermines the fact that they are indeed three independent stake races for three year olds. Rather than worrying about the timing between these races, leave it all in place as is.

The real challenge is not whether the "Triple Crown" itself should be changed, but rather will another marketing machine redefine the hallmark races for three year olds?

For example, why not the "Transcontinental Cup" for three year olds starting with the derby and moving to the Travers at Saratoga and the Breeder's Cup with a three-year old event at Santa Anita? What about defining a "National Cup" for three year olds that rotate three races every year?

The concept of the "Triple Crown" exists only for marketing purposes and we all know that strong marketing can change the landscape. Don't believe it? Roll the calendar back to 1985 and check what happened with Kentucky Derby winner Spend A Buck.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

So Steve Coburn's rant following the Belmont Stakes was very interesting to me. Not because he is right, because he is not right... he's not even close to being right and his entire premise goes against the history and elusiveness of Horse Racing's greatest honor... to win the Triple Crown. What was interesting is that many very casual followers of the sport (non-bettors and people who only watch the Derby or a Belmont if the Triple Crown is on the line) actually agreed with Steve Coburn's opinion. It is telling how people can hear a soundbite and run with it as fact, even though the opinion was not based in any history or education of the sport, it was purely a baseless opinion from someone who was being a bit of a sore loser and has had a TON of luck in the racing business. I assume this happens throughout humanity on many different levels and topics (especially politics), people run with or support an uneducated idea because the soundbite captured their attention.

It's not surprising that people who don't know the sport would agree with him because when you just hear one side of the argument about one aspect of something, you're probably going to think the argument makes sense. If you don't know the facts of a case and you just listen to the defense attorney's arguments for a couple of minutes (without hearing the prosecution's case), it will sound like the defendant has a great case.

The truth of the matter is that fresh horses do have an advantage. So what? An owner has a right to get to a race any way he wants. Nobody has the right to dictate to an owner what races his horse has to run in. Each individual TC race is a huge race. Each race has top horses and fresh horses. That is one of the reasons that each race is tough to win.

As others have said, can you imagine if the rules were the way that Coburn wants them to be? The Belmont would be a 3 horse field every year. This year it would have been a 3 horses field with CC, General A Rod, and Ride on Curlin. To have Belmonts like that, it wouldn't even be a big deal to win the TC.

So it is true that CC was at a disadvantage compared to the fresher horses but that is the way it should be. That is one of the reasons that winning the TC is so elusive and why winning the TC is such a huge accomplishment. You have to take on all comers. That is the way it should be.

If you simply go up to a novice without putting things in context and ask him if he thinks it's fair that CC ran in all the races and the other horses didn't, the guy will probably say that it's not fair. But then if you explain all the facts to the person, he will probably change his mind.

[DaTruth]

By making his half-baked comments, Coburn may have unknowingly done a favor for those who want the Triple Crown to remain as is. For at least this year anyway, a decision to move the Belmont to later in June would be viewed by the non-racing media as a reaction to what Coburn said. They might even think the idea originated with Coburn himself. Of course, a discussion about altering the timing seems to arise each time a Triple Crown bid is foiled, but since when has public perception in regards to racing been guided by facts.