Does anyone else think it unfair that fresh horses are allowed to upset the favorite in the TC running by not being required to be contenders in the TC line up?
Asked by
Coloma (
47193
)
June 7th, 2014
I am SO pissed off! Totally agree with CC’s owner Steve Coburn. California Chrome would have won the TC had these fresh and well rested steeds that did not compete in the grueling TC lineup been banned from entry.
As a horse person, do any of you feel that it is freaking high time that all TC contenders be required to have run in ALL the prior races?
Considering that even one weeks extra rest between races can make all the difference in condition and readiness.
What do you think?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
90 Answers
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I really wanted California Chrome to win.
—@chyna Me too! So disappointing. :-(
Hey if you are special enough to earn a Crown then you can take on all comers regardless.
@Adirondackwannabe Yes and no. True, it would mean a smoking victory over all conditions and contenders but…..a fair field is, well, only fair. Between the short span between races, traveling to a new track and stables, the horses that have the adjustment and rest advantage have the advantage.
Three races in five weeks is a lot. But that’s life. It isn’t always fair.
Well shit…no horsey peeps to debate with. haha
Didn’t some of the previous TC winners win under the same conditions, or is the allowance of fresh horses in the TC races a recent ruling?
I bet if Mr. Ed, Trigger, or Silver were still alive, one of them would win! ;-p
It’s not all of a sudden unfair, the rules have been this way for a long time.
So perhaps it might be nice to change the rules, now, for foals born in 2015. But Affirmed and Secretariat were able to do it.
Is it really that hard on a horse to run a race every two weeks? So the Belmont is longer than the Derby, but after today they never have to run again.
Oh, of course @Brian1946 and @zenvelo a long standing policy to allow entries regardless of prior competition in the TC trifecta, but…..I think the disadvantages are strong enough to merit a change of policy in the thoroughbred racing industry. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn’t mean it’s the right way or the fair way.
Olympians must qualify and train under the same conditions, so should thoroughbred race horses.
Having weeks of extra rest, and acclimation to an environmental conditions is an unfair advantage IMO.
No. Unless the horse ran in the prior two races, they are not a TC contender. A horse doesn’t have to be a TC contender to run in the Belmont, as it should be.
Relax. There is a lot of tradition here. A TC crown winner is not common. There are reasons for that. If they were common it wouldn’t be a big deal.
No, I do not think this should be changed. Here is the weakening of America again….........it’s everywhere….............if it’s hard we need to change it. I say BS!
For God’s sake! Chrome came in fourth and for the co-owner to come out bitching about the winning horse not running the other races is being nothing less than a crybaby spoiled brat who feels the other horses should just lay down on the track. He just soiled his horses earlier stellar achievements and further proves how entitled some elites really think they are.
Sour grapes, to win a TC the horse needs to be special & earn the title, owners are perfectly entitled to pick & choose which races to place their horses in, huge prize money being the main attraction.
Over here the TC runs from early May through to its conclusion in September, giving the contenders plenty of recovery time, so the timetable is at fault over there if anything.
The point of the Triple Crown is that it is hard to achieve and that a horse has to be very special to compete in and win all three. That’s the point. I don’t get the bellyaching either.
What @CWMcCall said. Too bad the drama of the owner being just another hick from Carson City will mar this horse’s achievements. Losing gracefully is an artform. Coming in 4th is a clear indication that the horse just didn’t have what it takes.
3 races in 35 days. Why is that a lot for a horse when humans recover from exertion much faster? I mean, NFL or NBA athletes push themselves to the limit way more than that. Serious question, those familiar with horse physiology please explain why 3 races in 35 days is a lot.
Who cares? To me, horse racing is inhumane.
Although in this case,it seems like the owner has a good point.
There have been 11 Triple Crown winners in the last 95 years. That’s a pretty high percentage. They are three separate races, three different distances and trainers will often enter horses based on their strengths. The “Triple Crown” is an arbitrary designation of three particular races, the value is in the tradition and the publicity, nothing else.
Fair or not fair doesn’t have anything to do with this.
For a horse to be flown on a plane or trucked in a horse carrier hundreds of miles from one track to another, getting acclimated to a new track is not the same as a human going to various locations to run. I think for the playing field to be level, the horses should run in all three races so they’d all have gone through the same stress of the previous races and the travel from track to track. If you have a horse who has not made those trips in the past few weeks, who has maybe not raced any hard races recently, he is going to be nice and rested compared to the one who did.
@jca So if the horse is from Kentucky or New York and didn’t have to travel very far to the track is the race not fair?
California Chrome was the only California Nevada horse in the first two races, and traveled the farthest overall, yet won the first two pretty easily.
@GloPro: In my opinion, it doesn’t matter where the horse is from originally. If he has been at the track where the race is being run, and not transported from anywhere else for months, and not ran any hard races for months, then it’s not an equal race. “Where the horse is from” is not my point. (It’s also just my opinion and something I’m not going to get into arguing on a happy sunny NY Sunday)
I can entertain both schools of thought yes, but I still feel that the contenders should have to have run the KD at least and preferably both races to qualify. Steve Coburn was a bit of an ass but it is who he is, a colorful guy, and while he could have behaved more gracefully, still, a huge blow after how far they had come.
I agree with @jca wholeheartedly, my sentiments exactly.
An extra rested and acclimated animal will have the advantage going the extra distance.
@canidmajor IMO the “value” is in seeing some of the worlds finest horse flesh compete and show off what they have been bred to do for hundreds and hundreds of years, to run.
@GloPro It has more to do with rest and recovery time between racing events and time to build up acclimation to a new track and running conditions, changes in climate, the stress of relocating to a new environment 3 times in 5 weeks. Adjustment and acclimation is stressful for people and horses. Some horses adjust quickly, others need more time to settle down and in.
Yep, to @jca agreed, just curious as to others opinions, beautiful day here in CA. too.
CC also gashed his foot, so THAT, certainly nicked his performance. If not for the injury he might still have won. Clipped his own heel out of the gate it appears, overstepping his break.
@GloPro: Just my point. Maybe by the third race, he had enough traveling and racing.
Photos show CC getting stepped on by Matterhorn in the gate. Not a serious injury.
California Chrome was racing in California in early May. He traveled all the way to Kentucky and won easily with little acclimation time. He had also raced in, and won, 3 other races in 2014. His owners raced him monthly already.
The injury I can understand. But he won races after traveling over 2,000 miles, which is the longest distance traveled by any horse.
I think it was the distance and the dirt track. The same things that have taken down other contenders in the past. The owner showed poor sportsmanship. What else would you expect from the DumbAssPartners.
@GloPro You have a point, however, to truly be sportsmanlike abut the TC event the horses should all have an equally fair advantage by being regulated under the same conditions and pre-qualifying from the previous races. I didn’t have any preconceived notions about DA partners, it was a feel good story, and sadly it didn’t have a fairy tale ending as hoped. First time horse owners, marginal pedigree, the underdog horse, Art Shermans late life hopes for a TC horse. I liken the whole situation to Sea Bisquit, and given the economic state of affairs the whole story was poised to be a great american motivational event.
Oh well….easy come, easy go. Everyone got their 15 minutes of fame, that’s about all that can be said.
It makes no sense to disallow fresh horses for the last race of the triple crown. Winning the triple crown is an incredible and rare achievement specifically because each of these races is a distinct event, within a short time period, with different competitors in the running.
If they want to make a new challenge that includes only horses signed up for all three races, fine. But the prize won’t be as sweet with a horse winning it every year. That’s simply not an impressive achievement.
No I do not. The “Triple Crown” is not in and of itself an integrated series in the same way that the Triathlon is, or a league play off. It is three separate events, and just like in other countries where horse racing is popular, somebody decided to call winning in each of them the “Triple Crown”.
If it were like a Triathlon, then it would certainly not be fair to have a person or horse jump in for the last leg of the contest.
But this is not the case. They are three separate horse races, with the potential of having three completely different fields of competitors.
I understand CC’s owner being disappointed, but I think he made a fool of himself on the TV. He sounded like a cry baby.
The best part was comparing his own horse to a kid in a wheelchair. Moron.
After researching other Triple Crown winners, there are only 2 or 3 horses in the Belmont that also raced Preakness and KD in any given year. Apparently this year there were only 2 other horses in Belmont that raced the other two.
The races wouldn’t be very popular if there were only 3 horses in them. And the probability of proving your horse superior when racing against only two other horses, one of which came in dead last yesterday, is just not likely.
Every other TC winner has done so under the same circumstances. It even sounds silly to go complaining about the rules 97 years after they were established just because your horse didn’t measure up. Tough break.
By your reasoning, @Coloma, every entrant in the Kentucky Derby should also be in both other races, with no changes or scratches, and while they’re at it, the distances should all be the same, so no horse be given an unfair advantage because it might have more natural stamina, or more sprint power. The races should all be run indoors so that differing track conditions are not a factor. Oh, and riderless, because jockeys can introduce an element of human variance.
That would be “fair”.
IMO the “value” is in seeing some of the worlds finest horse flesh compete and show off what they have been bred to do for hundreds and hundreds of years, to run.
A lack of a Triple Crown title does not diminish the value as you stated it. Not sure why you think it would.
Did you lose a bet?
Wonder if all the Kenyan NYC marathon winners – or losers – should complain about the distance they’ve had to travel and the number of races they were in?
I love it when people enter a sport then demand rule changes when they lose.
Same can be said in more sports, athletes & cyclists frequently double up at the Olympics or Giro D’Italia & Tour De France. They know they’re disadvantaged with fresher opponents, but want to push their limits to greater feats.
@canidmajor You’re making a lot of assumptions. I will refrain from hyphenating that word. haha
I am simply saying that I believe a fair field of horses should all be required to run the same racing schedule or, at the least. be original contenders in the KD. At least ONE qualifying race. Agreed, the thrill of the race and the animals performance is not diminished. No, no lost wagers, I am not a gambling woman, I am a former equestrienne and endurance rider that feels all entrants should be required to be competitors under equal conditions.
@Darth_Algar I’m not advocating trying to change the rules because of a defeat, I am only saying that to be a true, equally matched competition the horses should all be required to be pulled from the the KD lineup. Pretty evenly divided yay and “neigh” amongst racing fans it seems. Sometimes modifications need to be made, nothing wrong with that.
@Coloma
Well my statement was about people entering a sport then wanting rules changes when they lose. Unless you’re competing (whether as a jock, an owner or whatever) in horse racing I think it’s pretty clear my statement wasn’t addressed to you.
personally I don’t want to see “equally matched” competition is sports. I want to see the best win. “Equality” in sports is a fantasy. Take a look at, for example, NASCAR. They’ve spent 10 years making rule change after rule change trying to achieve “parity” in their sport, yet a handful of teams still continue to dominate. Shoot for equality all you want, the best will always win. In this case California Chrome wasn’t the best and it’s owners are now whining and making excuses for not getting the job done.
@Darth_Algar I wasn’t responding on a personal level, and to clarify, I don’t mean “equal” as in no competition, but equal as in, a fair shot for all contenders based on similar training, acclimation and deserving qualification conditions,
Most sports have qualifying events and I think the KD should be a prerequisite qualifying event for contenders, that’s all. Then, let the best man, horse, win., lol
This is just a discussion as many would like to see this shift in the racing industry.
There is always going to be division of opinions and each side has a valid point in this case.
Horses that don’t qualify for the derby should not be able to be arbitrarily entered in the following stakes.
And if, say, 34ths of the field from the Kentucky Derby decline to enter the following events what then? Do you run the race with only 4 or 5 horses? Does anyone really want to see that?
@Darth_Algar Hey, a field of 5 isn’t bad, match races happen, but sure, ideally the field would be at least 10 but larger and smaller fields happen. Largest field 23 in 1974 and smallest 3 horses in 1892 and 1905. A half dozen is still a decent enough field. This years Derby had a field of 11 so 6 would be better than 50%.
Not sure I can agree with you @Coloma Each race is a new race and until they create a set series that all horses must run in, we have to accept it for what it is. And why you do not see Nascar drivers in the Indy series or LeMans series car races. If you are to win the triple crown you must take on all comers in varied track conditions otherwise the Triple crown would have a lot less value to it.
This year would have been 3 horses, @Coloma. One came in dead last, one seventh, one tied for 4th. None were the superior horse if 3 horses beat even the best of the KD racing horses.
@GloPro I get it, however, in that case. had CC not injured himself he might have smoked the 2 KD contenders, too late now and this horse is dead. haha
It’s been a good discussion, thanks for your participation all.
I’m not a gambler, but when you hear the racing talk prior to a race, handicappers always pay attention to circumstances such as those discussed here. Who traveled, who’s raced recently and how they did, who was jumpy going into the gate, who stumbled coming out of the gate, who had an injury recently, etc.
I’m sure this is going to be a popular topic in the days and weeks ahead, in racing editorials. Let’s see what sports columnists in papers like NY Post, NY Times and others say.
@jca Yes, I’ve already read a few interesting commentaries. Lots to consider.
@Coloma: I just saw Bob Costas on The Today Show and he was talking about it. Some feel one way, some feel another. He seems to feel the way you and I do, and according to a survey they did online, 87% percent of people say it’s not fair, and 13% feel it is fair.
@janbb: Comparing horses to marathon runners is like comparing apples to oranges.
@Coloma I’m confused. California Chrome did smoke the two horses in the Kentucky Derby… Both times.
The quote from his trainer is that his wound was a flesh wound. His commentary was that it ‘probably stung’ and ‘certainly didn’t help.’ He never went so far as to say that it was the main factor in causing CC to lose the race. I believe this trainer with integrity and years of experience in racing, who is obviously extremely disappointed, should be the spokesperson for DAP instead of the owner. His interviews are much more realistic.
@jca The survey is worthless unless they only surveyed people with any knowledge of racing and the history of racing. If they asked the follow up question of “Why is it unfair this year when it has not been unfair for the past 97 years?” you would see how many people have no clue either way. People are sheep with the opinions they are fed.
We have had many strong horses win the crown that deserve a spot in history. To change the rule would most likely result in less turnout for fans (read: less money), less money coming in through betting due to fewer contenders in the Preakness and Belmont (read: less money), and more horses winning a crown than should (read: less prestige and therefore less money).
If you look at clips and commentary of the horses that have fought hard and won the Triple Crown, each one is a beautiful and impressive horse deserving of a spot in history. Making it easier to win is only lowering the bar. Changing the rule almost guarantees a yearly winner. Bo-ring.
@GloPro: Yes the survey is worthless, I just mentioned it to show what popular opinion is. They said that there is buzz all over the internet and social media about this topic. I have not read any of the buzz yet as I was busy yesterday. Today, I will have a chance.
That’s why I said in my prior post, let’s see what the racing experts say. According to Bob Costas, there are arguments on both sides. They will be interesting. Your opinion is relatively worthless, as is mine, unless you and I are racing experts.
He did say that horses are bred differently then they were forty years ago, which may have something to do with the fact that there have been no winners lately. He said that they are more fragile now (which you will hear buzz about if you watch horse races). They are bred so their legs are so long that they cannot be birthed naturally.
He also said that if the rules are changed, the new winners cannot be compared to the previous winners (which speaks somewhat to what you say above).
So let’s see what the experts say. I will try to find some columns and opinions later. I will be unbiased in my linking of articles that illustrate both sides of the debate.
Although I do not race, my father educated me growing up on horse racing pretty thoroughly. I have seen countless documentaries, and even gone to the point of visiting the graves of Secretariat and Ruffian. I have been watching every KD, Preakness, and Belmont every year since I was aware of TV.
I have not seen a Triple Crown winner in my lifetime. The anticipation is killing me. I went to the Belmont to watch War Emblem go for it in 2002 and came away very sad. I considered attending the Belmont this year. I wanted CC to win, of course, because it was a great story and is a beautiful horse. The owner has left a sour taste in my mouth, which is a shame.
@GloPro: My “experience and qualifications” are roughly similar to yours. They mean little on the scale of people who are immersed in this as professionals. Let’s see what the experts say, later.
@GloPro Yes, the injury was minor, but enough to distract from a strong run. All things considered it was just another nail in his shoe, along with being off his game, Espinozas less than stellar ride and a hard to navigate pass on the outside I saw Secretariats TC victory, I was 13. Thrilling beyond words.
@jca Pat Fords article on Yahoo this morning advocates changing the dates, not the race.
I’d be happy with this as well, Art Sherman says 7 weeks between races is ideal. I think some changes will be made, kicking and screaming perhaps with what PF calls ” the hidebound traditionalists” having to soften their hides.
Coburn may have gone a little overboard in his upset but I like that he is addressing a situation that does need to be amended and yes, as you mention, many others agree.
@GloPro Oh no, haha, I always wanted to go to the KD, it’s on my bucket list.
These races are what, a quarter mile each? And 4–5 weeks apart? Is it really that much of a stretch for a horse, especially one on that level, to run that? I don’t really get this talk of “freshness”. Baring injuries a month should be plenty of time to fully rest up from a quarter mile run.
@Darth_Algar: The Belmont Stakes is 1½ miles long.
The 3 legs of the Triple Crown were 5/3, 5/18 and 6/7 in 2014.
Hardly a quarter mile long and hardly 4–5 weeks apart.
I stand corrected. Still, my overall point stands.
@Darth_Algar: Your point that a month should be sufficient rest from a quarter mile run?
@jca
The point that there is a sufficient rest period between races.
OK. According to some experts, not to others.
I don’t know that asking a horse to sprint for a mile and a half any later in the summer in New York is a great idea, either. How much hotter do you want it to be when they run, and wouldn’t heat contribute to the exhaustion of the horses?
@Coloma I’ve been to the Kentucky Derby many times in my youth. What a huge party!
@jca That article is an editorial written by a sports reporter for Yahoo. He reports on all sports and is no more of a horse racing expert than you or I. The only things of merit he said were that Art Sherman stated that the ideal timing between races is 7 weeks, and that each track decides the race date for themselves, which is interesting. When his source indicated that the NYRA has no intention of pushing the Belmont back, he suggested that NBC regulate the races, for goodness sakes. A TV giant, really?
If, as things stand, competing in the first two races cuts down on the chances of winning the third then the races should be spread further apart. It is not just the horses and their owners that have a stake in this, but the public as well. It creates interest when a horse has a shot at winning all three races, but the public should be able to see the horses be in the best possible shape for each race.
How did 19 horses manage to win all 3 under the same conditions?
Slumpier. Just when you thought things were bad, they got slumpier. @gailcalled must be twitching
@GloPro: What I heard Bob Costas say (and have read this on internet, as well) is that it’s got to do with the way horses are bred and trained nowadays, compared to 30 plus years ago.
I looked today for columns on this topic so I could link them, as I said I would. I know on the Today Show they said it was a hot topic on the web and social networks, and I know it is controversial, so I figured I’d have no problem finding articles. I looked at NY Times, NY Post, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, I googled things like “triple crown controversy,” “Belmont Stakes controversy,” “Horse racing controversy” and I got lots of stuff on the race itself, lots of stuff on drugging horses, lots of stuff on the nasal strips that California Chrome uses, lots of stuff on the jerky owner’s comments, but little on columns and editorials from people whose opinions would be based on knowledge.
If anybody wants to give it a try, please feel free. If you find stuff, please link it.
@syz I too have mixed feelings about racing. The worse offenders are the sleazy casino gambling tracks, many in Florida. Also famous for the cruelties of the Grayhound racing industry.
There is risk involved to both horse and jock. Just like any sport.
Nothing wrong with running horses, jumping horses, being involved in sport horse competition as long as it is done with ethics and the horses best interest in mind.
Football and gymnastics are responsible for a lot of injuries and deaths as well.
Pushing anything, be it human or animals beyond it’s endurance can result in unhappy outcomes.
The racing industry has tightened it’s belt and uses strict drug testing, the most controversial issue IMO is running 2–3 yr. animals before their bones are fully developed.
Ideally these colts should not be run until they are 4 yr. olds for optimum health concerns.
So, if the rules are changed now, and next year there is a triple crown winner, what then? Who will care about the triple crown if it becomes a yearly event? People talk now about how the sport “needs” a triple crown winner, but I would argue that exactly the opposite is true. Once it becomes a common occurrence, no one will give a damn when it happens, any more than they do when a horse wins a single race.
@dappled_leaves
Well….36 years between winners is enough to not give a damn either. lol
Longer rest periods between races and evening out the playing field will only contribute to the better conditions for the entrants and more evenly matched competition.
@dappled_leaves: I’m not looking for a winner a year. I’m looking for fairness and for better conditions for the animals.
If the rules are changed and next year we have a Triple Crown winner, that’s what asterisks were invented for.
@Coloma “Football and gymnastics are responsible for a lot of injuries and deaths as well.”
Yes. In these, though, the competitors enter willingly, knowing the risk they are taking.
@longgone True, if they are adults, but what about kids whose parents allow them and push them into extreme sports that can result in serious injury. My old sister-in-law broke herself down seriously as a child and teen in competitive gymnastics.
^ That scenario is horrible, too, I agree.
Just for fun, I have had several interactions/discussions about this TC issue with others in the last day or two. All participants in the conversation agree that longer duration between races and the possibility of other qualifying races are preferable. This TC has really roused opinions from even non-racing fans, of which I should share that until CC this year I have not watched the Derby and it’s trailing races in years and years,
California Chrome was Americas horse, and he inspired a unity not seen in decades.
CC was this eras Sea Bisquit, and his participation has evoked some controversial ideals of changec
Steve Coburns rant, while a bit over the top, certainly contains many grains of truth IMO.
We shall see.
A win/win for all involved perhaps in the future of the TC.
“California Chrome was Americas horse, and he inspired a unity not seen in decades.”
Honestly, I had never heard of California Chrome before this thread.
@Darth_Algar Well…okay, so you didn’t tap into the energy. CC was this eras Sea Biscuit, something to get excited about in the current depression, just like Sea Biscuit inspired the underdog in the great depression decades ago. Not much to unite america these days, but a good old fashioned horse race can still do it.
@Coloma:I remember hearing similar things said about Funny Cide and Charismatc. The big difference was that their owners weren’t, publicly, such sour-grapes jackasses.
The owner of California Chrome may have been pissed and should have been more diplomatic, but obviously things he said ignited the spark of debate (as I illustrated that it was on Today Show and they said it’s all over the internet). In the comments section of the articles about the Belmont and Triple Crown, everyone was talking about it.
@canidmajor Well…the double edged sword methinks. Yep, he was a bit of a sour grapes sore loser, but, as @jca points out, he has also sparked a needed debate and while he could have been a bit more diplomatic he did spit out more than a grain of truth.
Every horse that wins the first two becomes America’s horse. They spin a fairy tale around each one because we’re all so excited to see a TC winner. I have my fingers crossed for next year. I could care less if they change the dates. I disagree they should force the individual racetrack associations make joint decisions like forcing horses to enter the KC.
@GloPro Yeah, they all run the same distance over the same track. Grow a pair, sore loser.
Maybe the horses would run faster if they didn’t have a pair. Those things are probably about as comfortable as me sprinting with these boulders on my chest.
Really boulders? I’m a pervert. Is it okay if I’m intrigued?
It’s about as intriguing as trying to figure out running with balls. You really only get it if you have a pair.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
