So tired of this mentality

[PaceAdvantage]

Class warfare has finally embedded itself into the game of racing.

Here we have another writer claiming the reason Coburn is being criticized is because he dares to mess with the "racing establishment." The "Blue Bloods."

No, he's being criticized because he's being an idiot. If we made it such that only horses who ran in the Derby could run in the Preakness and Belmont, the Belmont would end up a 4 horse race most years.

But no...one of the main reasons Coburn is being criticized, according to this writer, is because Coburn dared criticize the likes of Robert S. Evans, who is described by the author as follows: "Robert S. Evans, is from a monied family with a long history in racing, the son of legendary breeder Thomas Mellon Evans, who owned Buckland Farm in the Bluegrass country."

Like anyone really cares. Like anyone would really go out of their way to criticize Coburn simply because he dared to point a finger at some racing "Blue Blood."

How did this mentality creep itself into our game? This east/west "Blue Blood" thing is a myth.

Were the "Blue Bloods" up in arms when Funny Cide was going for the Triple Crown? Were there multiple posts on this board predicting the "Blue Bloods" would see to it that a gelding with "ordinary" connections would not be allowed to win the Triple Crown?

Coburn WAS wrong...that's why he is being criticized...and anyone claiming he was right, like this author, needs to give his head a shake.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/racin...n-s-right.aspx

[Dahoss2002]

Damn he's just as nutty as Coburn. The KY Derby, Preakness, and Belmont are all races run independent of one another despite the term "Triple Crown". They are not a "Starter Series". Here are the conditions for the Belmont : 1½ Mile. Belmont-G1 BELMONT S. Grade I. Purse $1,500,000 FOR THREE YEAR
OLDS. By subscription of $600 each, to accompany the nomination, if made on or
before January 25, 2014, or $6,000, if made on or before March 22, 2014. At any time prior
to the closing time of entries, horses may be nominated to The Belmont Stakes upon
payment of a supplementary fee of $75,000 to the New York Racing Association, Inc.
$15,000 to pass the entry box and $15,000 additional to start. All entrants will be
required to pay entry and starting fees, but no fees, supplemental or otherwise shall be
added to the purse. The purse to be divided $800,000 to the winner, $280,000 to second,
$150,000 to third, $100,000 to fourth, $60,000 to fifth, $45,000 to sixth, $35,000 to
seventh and $30,000 to eighth. Colts and Geldings, 126 lbs., Fillies, 121 lbs. The winning
owner will be presented with the August Belmont Memorial Cup to be retained for one
year as well as a trophy for permanent possession and trophies to the winning trainer
and jockey.

Nowhere in there does it say that you must have run in the Derby and or Preakness. I sure hope Coburn read the conditions before he entered his horse but heck, maybe he lets the trainer do all that.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Coburn WAS wrong...that's why he is being criticized...and anyone claiming he was right, like this author, needs to give his head a shake.

He's actually getting a lot of support. Mostly from people who know nothing about horse racing.

Horse racing is so isolated from main stream America these days that it's become an insider's sport only. Is that a good thing?

Needless to say, the way to get a sport, any sport, into the mainstream is to appeal to a large audience. And in that approach public opinion of what is fair and not fair does matter.

The insider's view almost without exception is that things should stay as they are. Nothing wrong with traditionalists. Except... where has that gotten horse racing in the past seventy or eighty years? Where would baseball be, or basketball, or football, you name it, if those sports had been as closed off as horse racing?

A big problem facing horse racing is a lack of popularity. And the closed off culture doesn't help. From that perspective I think it's great that, because of Chrome and Coburn's rant, people everywhere are debating what is fair in the Triple Crown. Don't tell 'm they don't know what they're talking about until they learn about horse racing's great tradition. They would know about it if the sport hadn't become so invisible.

I've seen comments from very nice and knowledgeable people telling Coburn to go away. But I would have to disagree. Stay. Keep stirring things up. A guy like him is the link to the bigger public.

[NY BRED]

California Chrome did not lose this race because he ran against
'fresh horses".

In fact, CC had an advantage over these horses based upon his
racing career and $'s in previous races and distances close to the
Belmont 1 1/2 distance which was not the case with the
winner or the other targets of Steve Coburn.

BTW, CC dead heated with Medal Count who he faced in the Derby,
somehow overlooked by this jerk.

The rigors of CC's campaign ,grabbing a quarter, post position
probably contributed to CC's loss.

Blaming the rules of the game, rather than being elated to have
been in the position to compete for a Triple Crown speaks legends
on this dumb ass owner.

Frankly, I wish the trainer and jockey would resign from DAP.

[BetHorses!]

Originally Posted by NY BRED

The rigors of CC's campaign ,grabbing a quarter, post position
probably contributed to CC's loss.

Or the Racing Gods got it right

[Seabiscuit@AR]

It is not as if the fresh horses ran monster races and earned 120 Beyers blowing away the worn out Derby horses by many lengths

Tonalist ran a poor race for a winner of the Belmont and was there to be beaten by a worthy Triple Crown winner

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by BetHorses!

Or the Racing Gods got it right

And they have been getting it right for the past 30 some years. I thought Smarty Jones may have been worthy, but I guess that was proven wrong.

I wonder if there was any "changes" in the Triple Crown between Citation and Secretariat? I wonder if there were any owners who whined and cried like a baby afterward? I'm guessing no and no.

[acorn54]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

He's actually getting a lot of support. Mostly from people who know nothing about horse racing.

Horse racing is so isolated from main stream America these days that it's become an insider's sport only. Is that a good thing?

Needless to say, the way to get a sport, any sport, into the mainstream is to appeal to a large audience. And in that approach public opinion of what is fair and not fair does matter.

The insider's view almost without exception is that things should stay as they are. Nothing wrong with traditionalists. Except... where has that gotten horse racing in the past seventy or eighty years? Where would baseball be, or basketball, or football, you name it, if those sports had been as closed off as horse racing?

A big problem facing horse racing is a lack of popularity. And the closed off culture doesn't help. From that perspective I think it's great that, because of Chrome and Coburn's rant, people everywhere are debating what is fair in the Triple Crown. Don't tell 'm they don't know what they're talking about until they learn about horse racing's great tradition. They would know about it if the sport hadn't become so invisible.

I've seen comments from very nice and knowledgeable people telling Coburn to go away. But I would have to disagree. Stay. Keep stirring things up. A guy like him is the link to the bigger public.

you raise a very good point, about catering to the public to gain market share. i am no marketing guru by any means, but i think you are right in that other sports and gambling venues do much more to get john q public involved in their business.

[onefast99]

Well written and thank you for sticking up for the little guy.

Someone replied and stuck up for TLG, nice!

[Rex Phinney]

When the entire world thinks these are the only three races all year, it's no wonder people are saying Coburn is right. All of those here know better though. Each of these races is a big deal to win, anyone with a capable enough horse should have the chance to enter.

[horses4courses]

NBC actually posted a poll on their sappy morning tabloid show
with over 70% stating that the TC in it's present form is unfair.

Brother.......


I hope this all blows over sooner than later.

[Track Phantom]

This argument is the most idiotic I've seen in all the years I've followed horse racing. There is MUCH broken with horse racing. The "Triple Crown" and everything surrounding it is NOT broken. It works. To win all three legs, it requires the horse to not just be a great horse, but to be one of the greatest horses of all-time.

If there is any modification of the current format, horse racing will pay the price with a cheapened accomplishment. Who cares if we never see a Triple Crown winner in our lifetime? The alternative would be to see many Triple Crown winners with a big, fat asterisk.

Does Colburn realize he was not "required" to run in the Preakness? He could have skipped it for the Belmont, too. He didn't because he wanted the fame and fortune associated with a Triple Crown winner. Good for him. But the rules are fair for everyone.

His rant after the race revealed his true character. Everyone is a great guy when they are winning. His comments after the Preakness about Churchill Down might have been a prelude to what we saw. There is a time and a place to have criticism and this ass-clown doesn't know it. He is more cheaply bred than his horse.

[Robert Fischer]

Exactly PA

I was previously aware of at least 3 categories - Those who simply believe Coburn makes logical sense(and while I disagree with this category, I respect their opinion), Those who have only a casual understanding of horse racing, and Those who went "all-in" on Chrome and for the last few days have been doing their best Coburn impression.

Now a 4th category for Class Warfare?

I explained to a family member (who is also occasionally a casual fan for major races) last night at dinner - The Derby has 20 horses, and after pace meltdowns, rough trips, injuries, and failure to bounce back after the race, - there may only be a handful of thriving horses ready to advance to the Preakness, much less the Belmont.

I'm not sure what to make of the "Class Warfare" angle. The bloodhorse author seemed to include the contrast simply for affect, with no discernible point.

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Class warfare has finally embedded itself into the game of racing.

Here we have another writer claiming the reason Coburn is being criticized is because he dares to mess with the "racing establishment." The "Blue Bloods."

No, he's being criticized because he's being an idiot. If we made it such that only horses who ran in the Derby could run in the Preakness and Belmont, the Belmont would end up a 4 horse race most years.

But no...one of the main reasons Coburn is being criticized, according to this writer, is because Coburn dared criticize the likes of Robert S. Evans, who is described by the author as follows: "Robert S. Evans, is from a monied family with a long history in racing, the son of legendary breeder Thomas Mellon Evans, who owned Buckland Farm in the Bluegrass country."

Like anyone really cares. Like anyone would really go out of their way to criticize Coburn simply because he dared to point a finger at some racing "Blue Blood."

How did this mentality creep itself into our game? This east/west "Blue Blood" thing is a myth.

Were the "Blue Bloods" up in arms when Funny Cide was going for the Triple Crown? Were there multiple posts on this board predicting the "Blue Bloods" would see to it that a gelding with "ordinary" connections would not be allowed to win the Triple Crown?

Coburn WAS wrong...that's why he is being criticized...and anyone claiming he was right, like this author, needs to give his head a shake.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/racin...n-s-right.aspx

[clocker7]

Originally Posted by Valuist

I wonder if there was any "changes" in the Triple Crown between Citation and Secretariat? I wonder if there were any owners who whined and cried like a baby afterward? I'm guessing no and no.

These are the spacings between the races for the following years:

1948: 2 and 4
1948: 1 and 4
1950: 2 and 3
1951: 2 and 4
1952: 2 and 3
1953: 3 and 3
1954: 3 and 3
1955: 3 and 2
1956: 2 and 4
1957: 2 and 4
1958: 2 and 3
1959: 2 and 4
1960: 2 and 3

Then during the 1960s, the pattern began to settle down somewhat, but not completely. In 1966 through 1968, there were only 2 weeks apiece between the events. Also, between 1963 and 1967, the Belmont was held at Aqueduct.

I probably should triple check, but it looks like the present day formula became ironclad in 1969; meaning, of course, 39 years after the mythical championship was born and 50 years after its first (ex post factor) winner.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

NBC actually posted a poll on their sappy morning tabloid show
with over 70% stating that the TC in it's present form is unfair.

Brother.......


I hope this all blows over sooner than later.

If 70% of the people think so in fair poll then they should think about changing things. But I doubt if their poll was a fair one. It was probably phrased so they would get the result they wanted. I would like to see a fair poll taken in the fall after the controversy has died down. Racing needs to start looking at what people who don't bet very often think and try to bring them into the fold. Everybody knows what the current bettors want. If they don't just read this forum for a week. It will be covered in spades.