California Chrome's owner just blew any goodwill.

[Left Bank]

SO, it will be interesting to see if, after making such comments, if this crew will campaign Chrome in the other upcoming 3 year old races. Will they take on all comers at Monmouth, or Saratoga, or will they take their ball and go home to softer competition in southern California state bred races?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Left Bank

SO, it will be interesting to see if, after making such comments, if this crew will campaign Chrome in the other upcoming 3 year old races. Will they take on all comers at Monmouth, or Saratoga, or will they take their ball and go home to softer competition in southern California state bred races?

Why would they do that? The horse has proven he belongs in top tier racing. Of course you race him as such.

I doubt the comments lose him much goodwill. Of course he was devastated, a lot of people say things in the heat of the moment they later regret. In his view, it used to be horses ran in all three. So, most tc winners beat the same competition three times. Would affirmed have won the Belmont over alydar had the latter skipped the Preakness? An intriguing rhetorical question..

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by arizonadave

How many of us,as horseplayers, have said dumb things about other horses,jockeys and owners when we lose.Its part of the game.Look at some of the posts in this forum when a person loses. We are lucky that there isn't a mic stuck in our face.

Agree....I'm willing to give him a pass, it's just his argument was ridiculous.

[JimmyEllis]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Agree....I'm willing to give him a pass, it's just his argument was ridiculous.

Exactly. And it's unofficial but word has it Adam Silver is thinking about changing the NBA playoff format with TC model in mind.

[King Glorious]

Earlier in the week, Sherman was saying he didn't see another Eastern trip in the cards for the horse. He said he needed to get him back to where he's comfortable and was looking at the Pacific Classic and BC to close the year.

[alysheba4]

horse isnt worthy........period. this is a dreadful group.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by arizonadave

How many of us,as horseplayers, have said dumb things about other horses,jockeys and owners when we lose.Its part of the game.Look at some of the posts in this forum when a person loses. We are lucky that there isn't a mic stuck in our face.

When you get old you say sh$t..I agree he should get a pass. ..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by geeker2

When you get old you say sh$t..I agree he should get a pass. ..

And stay off his lawn

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

And stay off his lawn

I laughed

[GenuineRisk]

Now, if he'd just saved his ire for the complete cluster*ck that was the trains back from the track.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Left Bank

SO, it will be interesting to see if, after making such comments, if this crew will campaign Chrome in the other upcoming 3 year old races. Will they take on all comers at Monmouth, or Saratoga, or will they take their ball and go home to softer competition in southern California state bred races?

Yea this horse has not taken on all comers to date. 3 races in 5 weeks in Ky, Md, and NY.......and now if he races back where he is from he would be ducking something?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Yea this horse has not taken on all comers to date. 3 races in 5 weeks in Ky, Md, and NY.......and now if he races back where he is from he would be ducking something?

And they ran him in the Santa Anita derby even tho they didn't need to. They're not afraid to race.

[richard burch]

i think what needs to change is that we tie all three races together as the name "triple crown" implies. it does seem strange that we only care about how many points a horse has for the derby and then totally disregard the other 2 races. by have designated horses for the triple crown it becomes more of a playoff type scenario.

what about nominating 23-25 horses that are eligible to run in any or all of the 3 races. start with 20 for he derby. there are always defections for the preakness and the next 5 can get in if they want or wait for the belmont. this would give the reserve horses rest but they also may have not run for 6 weeks so they dont get a clear fitness edge. you can still keep the weeks between them and the distances the same.

and if it ends up being a 6 horse field in the belmont so be it. secretariat and affirmed didn't have big fields to beat either.

[ateamstupid]

Just saw the rant for the first time. I was a fan of Coburn's up until now but he needs to get all the way the fck out of here with those sour grapes. Your horse very plainly wasn't good enough pops, suck it up and move on with your millions of dollars.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Just saw the rant for the first time. I was a fan of Coburn's up until now but he needs to get all the way the fck out of here with those sour grapes. Your horse very plainly wasn't good enough pops, suck it up and move on with your millions of dollars.

Pops is digging himself deeper this morning. amazing how things can turn so fast.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by richard burch

i think what needs to change is that we tie all three races together as the name "triple crown" implies. it does seem strange that we only care about how many points a horse has for the derby and then totally disregard the other 2 races. by have designated horses for the triple crown it becomes more of a playoff type scenario.

what about nominating 23-25 horses that are eligible to run in any or all of the 3 races. start with 20 for he derby. there are always defections for the preakness and the next 5 can get in if they want or wait for the belmont. this would give the reserve horses rest but they also may have not run for 6 weeks so they dont get a clear fitness edge. you can still keep the weeks between them and the distances the same.

and if it ends up being a 6 horse field in the belmont so be it. secretariat and affirmed didn't have big fields to beat either.

I wouldn't want a horse capable of beating the Triple Crown winner on the outside looking in because they didn't fit into this. How could people take it seriously if they wonder about whether the best horse was in the race? You beat the horses that show up on the day. Cherry picking a smaller group is an attempt to make it easier for the horse attempting to win it. Thousands of horses are nominated for the TC and that's your pool (unless you end up with a horse like Rachel Alexandra who wouldn't have been included by her owners or whatever committee or points system would've been responsible for this 25-30 TC eligible horse group). Not everybody's ready to go at the same time. How would you decide who to include? It'd be like a version of the Derby future wager or something. The Triple Crown isn't an invitational and we don't want a 3-4 horse field in the Belmont. If we do things Coburn's way, that means no AP Indy, no Rachel Alexandra. They didn't run in the Derby, they'd be out.

Things didn't work out this year. They might in the future. Frankly I thought higher of previous TC attempters than I did Chrome and I wasn't that worked up about it this year for whatever reason. I liked him fine, thought he was gorgeous and had a story they write movies and books about so it'd be great for the sport, but it just didn't grab me at the same emotional level as in the past. Didn't have nearly the nervousness that I did about Smarty Jones, Charismatic, or Real Quiet. Coburn really left a sour taste for me. I wonder if he'll even want to apologize. I feel like he'll double down with the griping and bad sportsmanship when he has a chance to think about it and get even angrier. Someone will stick a mic in his face and we'll get plenty of soundbites and bad PR. He'd do everyone a favor if he hushed for awhile and let everyone calm down if he didn't feel like taking it back. I'm looking forward to the end of the year honors where some people will be railing about East Coast bias if Chrome doesn't win HOY or whatever. Ugh.

For what it's worth, Art Sherman's carried himself really well. Probably the benefit of decades of experience. He knew he wasn't gonna win the race at the end and handled it with grace. Disappointed but classy as far as I could see. Poor Mrs. Coburn got the icy death stare for poking her husband. The freeze frame is classic.

[smootsirvin]

I'm an old guy.

I've gone on my share of rants, especially when I lose a big bet. This, however was horrifying because of the high profile and the danger that this thinking poses to the game we love.

The "Triple Crown" is not a real thing. The beauty of the Triple Crown is that the races are NOT officially connected. If you've been to Churchill Downs, Pimlico, and Belmont, you see quickly that THEIR race is all that matters. Winning all three races is a true test of greatness, because you have to beat all comers, in differing conditions over a ridiculously short period of time. It's a decathlon.

Any change would cheapen things for the winner. With the status quo we always have a hope that a winner will come forward and take his (or her -heh) place alongside the greats of our game. If you restrict the field, or change the dates, you WILL NEVER have a TRUE Triple Crown winner again.

[herkhorse]

http://youtu.be/B12eVCBbGsw

[keithting]

Originally Posted by herkhorse

http://youtu.be/B12eVCBbGsw

Classic !!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by richard burch

i think what needs to change is that we tie all three races together as the name "triple crown" implies. it does seem strange that we only care about how many points a horse has for the derby and then totally disregard the other 2 races. by have designated horses for the triple crown it becomes more of a playoff type scenario.

what about nominating 23-25 horses that are eligible to run in any or all of the 3 races. start with 20 for he derby. there are always defections for the preakness and the next 5 can get in if they want or wait for the belmont. this would give the reserve horses rest but they also may have not run for 6 weeks so they dont get a clear fitness edge. you can still keep the weeks between them and the distances the same.

and if it ends up being a 6 horse field in the belmont so be it. secretariat and affirmed didn't have big fields to beat either.

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