California Chrome out; Will return for full 5yo season

[casp0555]

Originally Posted by pointman

Some more detail.

http://ctba.com/california-chrome-out-for-the-year/

I'm sure dumb and dumber will manage to screw up any decision from here.

lately, when have they not......?

[LARHAGE]

What a shame poor horse is owned by idiots, he could have cleaned up on the local scene with Shared Belief injured, but those idiots go off chasing unicorns and the horse paid, I thought he looked horrible when he returned to the states, skinny and dull, too bad Sherman didn't have control, Frankel would have ripped them a new one!

[Kasept]

Jay Privman, Del Mar, 2015-07-12: A few thoughts on California Chrome -- appreciation for Art and Alan Sherman

If this indeed is the end of the racing career for CALIFORNIA CHROME, it should be noted that the only race he won after the Preakness was the Hollywood Derby, a race his trainer, Art Sherman, decided to run in because he trusted his instincts that California Chrome had come out of the Breeders' Cup Classic in excellent shape and was ready for another race at Del Mar.

Remember, the original plan was to not race California Chrome after the Breeders' Cup. Had that plan been followed, California Chrome would not have run in the Hollywood Derby, a race that unquestionably swung the tide toward bringing him both titles as champion 3-year-old male and Horse of the Year. If he doesn't run in that race, Bayern very likely wins both titles.

It was Art Sherman who wanted to run in the Hollywood Derby. His decision is what enabled the owners of California Chrome to receive the glory of a divisional title and Horse of the Year.

Yet after that, majority owner Perry Martin overruled the wishes of minority owner Steve Coburn and Sherman when it came to California Chrome's campaign this year. The Dubai World Cup made sense -- a race on dirt, for a giant purse.

But the decision to go to England, while certainly sporting, defied the wishes of Sherman and Coburn. For the first time, California Chrome was away from the care of the people -- Art and son Alan -- who made him who he was. He trained on unfamiliar terrain. He at the least suffered a foot bruise while there, and arrived back in the US with bone bruising, which now sends him to the sidelines, perhaps never to race again.

The entire reason for going to England was Martin's stated belief that a win there would increase California Chrome's value and appeal to breeders. Perhaps that would have been true. But he likely already had established his value, and no matter what he did there -- in races worth less than what he would have raced for here -- he was still going to be a son of Lucky Pulpit out of an $8,000 mare. He outran his pedigree, but whether he'll outperform his pedigree as a stallion is far from certain.

We'll never know if California Chrome would have remained injury free had he not gone to England. Perhaps the bone bruising he suffered would have occurred here, too.

But what I do know, from having watched this horse for the better part of his career, is that Art Sherman always showed that he knew what was best for California Chrome. He ignored people who said the colt should have arrived sooner at Churchill Downs before the Kentucky Derby, and those who said he needed to work between the Derby and Preakness, and those who questioned why he was running on grass after the Breeders' Cup.

Sherman was not down with going to the Pennsylvania Derby -- a pure money grab that left him a race short for the BC Classic -- nor going to England.

Sherman was right an all counts, and it's a real shame his probity wasn't fully appreciated by those whose interests he, ultimately, was trying to look out for.

[letswastemoney]

I don't think Perry Martin is anywhere near the villain that people are making him out to be.

But, they might as well retire California Chrome if the hate just piles on. No matter what they decide, the public will crucify his owners.

Was going to Europe really that anger-inducing for everyone? Lots of Americans go to Royal Ascot. Some race and are fine. Some get sick, like Finnegan.

Bad stuff happens to horses no matter where they ae.

[LARHAGE]

It wasn't going to Royal Ascot that blowed, it was going to Royal Ascot with THIS horse, he's a dirt horse and could have been home with the trainer that knew him best and cleaned up with Shared Belief on the sidelines, instead they ship him off to a new Country, with a new trainer to prepare him for something completely over his head, than they ship him back to another track for another impossible endeavor, the horse is tired of his futile traveling and looked like **** stepping off the van in Arlington, a waste of a very nice horse.

[RolloTomasi]

I thought an underlying reason why California Chrome went to Dubai was to essentially "duck" Shared Belief. The San Antonio Invitational (along with the BC Classic) was sort of billed as a budding rivalry between the two and the way the race turned out it seemed a good possibility. Despite Shared Belief's emphatic win, California Chrome ran well off the layoff and perhaps would have been sharper for the Big Cap. Instead, the owners took their ball and went elsewhere.

[letswastemoney]

Originally Posted by LARHAGE

It wasn't going to Royal Ascot that blowed, it was going to Royal Ascot with THIS horse, he's a dirt horse and could have been home with the trainer that knew him best and cleaned up with Shared Belief on the sidelines, instead they ship him off to a new Country, with a new trainer to prepare him for something completely over his head, than they ship him back to another track for another impossible endeavor, the horse is tired of his futile traveling and looked like **** stepping off the van in Arlington, a waste of a very nice horse.

All of his major accomplishments are on dirt because that's what he ran on. The horse he beat at Del Mar on turf ended up winning the Shoemaker Mile recently, so it's not 100 percent proven Chrome isn't a turf horse too.

Before Chrome ever became popular, I labeled him as a polytrack specialist in his 2 year old season because he didn't seem to grip dirt as well. But, he just needed an outside trip.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

All of his major accomplishments are on dirt because that's what he ran on. The horse he beat at Del Mar on turf ended up winning the Shoemaker Mile recently, so it's not 100 percent proven Chrome isn't a turf horse too.

Before Chrome ever became popular, I labeled him as a polytrack specialist in his 2 year old season because he didn't seem to grip dirt as well. But, he just needed an outside trip.

When he impressively wired the field ( I think it was the Robert Lewis, I was there but not sure which Stake exactly ) how come he didn't need an outside trip?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I don't think Perry Martin is anywhere near the villain that people are making him out to be.

But, they might as well retire California Chrome if the hate just piles on. No matter what they decide, the public will crucify his owners.

Was going to Europe really that anger-inducing for everyone? Lots of Americans go to Royal Ascot. Some race and are fine. Some get sick, like Finnegan.

Bad stuff happens to horses no matter where they ae.

of course it wasn't going to europe that caused this. anything and everything done since the guy went off immediately after the belmont has only drawn negative comments. obviously he spoke in the heat of the moment, full of emotion, and angry and depressed. what he said that day has been said a million times over by a million fans. discussions have been on here about 'new shooters'.
other horses ship, no comments. other horses try england--look at animal kingdom, and no negative comments. yeah, some questioned if AK had a chance, but it was nothing like this.
the horse didn't get a hoof bruise or a cannon bruise because of who owned him, or because or where he was stabled. we see this every day, regardless of how nice the owner is, or how savvy the trainer.
they took a risk, it didn't pan out. just like going for two can make you a hero if the team scores, and a zero if they don't.
i neither like nor dislike the owners. they took a chance, it didn't work out.
wesley ward takes those chances, look what one of his just accomplished.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Danzig

of course it wasn't going to europe that caused this. anything and everything done since the guy went off immediately after the belmont has only drawn negative comments. obviously he spoke in the heat of the moment, full of emotion, and angry and depressed. what he said that day has been said a million times over by a million fans. discussions have been on here about 'new shooters'.
other horses ship, no comments. other horses try england--look at animal kingdom, and no negative comments. yeah, some questioned if AK had a chance, but it was nothing like this.
the horse didn't get a hoof bruise or a cannon bruise because of who owned him, or because or where he was stabled. we see this every day, regardless of how nice the owner is, or how savvy the trainer.
they took a risk, it didn't pan out. just like going for two can make you a hero if the team scores, and a zero if they don't.
i neither like nor dislike the owners. they took a chance, it didn't work out.
wesley ward takes those chances, look what one of his just accomplished.

That was Steve Coburn who shot his mouth off. Perry Martin eventually pulled rank and started making the decisions about things like Ascot against Coburn's and Sherman's wishes. It wasn't really that "they" took the risk. Perry did. I don't think taking a horse like Chrome to Ascot is insane, but it's not some team effort to come to the best decision in Chrome's case. Each owner has gotten criticism for different reasons. Coburn's was deserved I felt. I can see both sides of the argument with Perry's.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

That was Steve Coburn who shot his mouth off. Perry Martin eventually pulled rank and started making the decisions about things like Ascot against Coburn's and Sherman's wishes. It wasn't really that "they" took the risk. Perry did. I don't think taking a horse like Chrome to Ascot is insane, but it's not some team effort to come to the best decision in Chrome's case. Each owner has gotten criticism for different reasons. Coburn's was deserved I felt. I can see both sides of the argument with Perry's.

Coburn shot his mouth off in the heat of the moment and then later apologized. I guess lots of horse racing fans have never shot their mouth off in the wake of a disappointment. Or maybe those fans have just been lucky enough never to have had their big disappointments occur while a dozen television cameras are pointed at them. I just don't get the vitriol spewed at these guys.

Reminder of how sorry Coburn was:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...list/10224725/

As Sherman is quoted as saying in the USA Today article, "The horses aren't cowards and the people aren't cowards. … I think it was a little out (of context) myself. But, hey, he was at the heat of the moment. And don't forget, he's a fairly new owner. Sometimes the emotions get in front of you. … He hasn't been in the game long and hasn't had any bad luck."

Now Coburn and Perry are learning how heartbreaking the game can be. I don't question the decisions (2nd in the Dubai World Cup don't suck); I just feel bad for them, the way I feel bad for any owner who loses a good horse to injury.

(Though I do hope Perry's obsession with getting what he thinks Chrome is worth at stud leads to him coming back at 5. )

And, for what it's worth, in the wake of Chrome's Belmont, I had several friends ask me, "So why ARE new horses allowed to run in the Belmont?" Sigh.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

of course it wasn't going to europe that caused this. anything and everything done since the guy went off immediately after the belmont has only drawn negative comments. obviously he spoke in the heat of the moment, full of emotion, and angry and depressed. what he said that day has been said a million times over by a million fans. discussions have been on here about 'new shooters'.
other horses ship, no comments. other horses try england--look at animal kingdom, and no negative comments. yeah, some questioned if AK had a chance, but it was nothing like this.
the horse didn't get a hoof bruise or a cannon bruise because of who owned him, or because or where he was stabled. we see this every day, regardless of how nice the owner is, or how savvy the trainer.
they took a risk, it didn't pan out. just like going for two can make you a hero if the team scores, and a zero if they don't.
i neither like nor dislike the owners. they took a chance, it didn't work out.
wesley ward takes those chances, look what one of his just accomplished.

Agree. There's a strong tendency to find fault with a decision when things turn out badly. But a bad outcome doesn't mean the earlier decision was wrong.