OT - Congrats California Chrome!

[Panama]

I believe Panama is a web developer for his 'day' job.

Correct.

[Bolt-O]

Damn... another year.

[captaind]

Other owners must have been pretty condescending towards him judging by that reaction.

[Boltimore]

My money wasn't on him, but I was still rooting for him. If he finished 3rd instead of 4th, GF would have hit her trifecta. Nuts.

[MakoShark]

The owners rant was sad, but he does make a good point.

[Panamamike]

The owners rant was sad, but he does make a good point.

I disagree that he makes a good point. The triple crown is one of the toughest achievements in sports. It has previously had a long drought, prior to Secretariat. Real Quiet had the best chance, and has been the best of the Derpby/Preakness winners, and lost at the wire. 11 horses have had a shot and failed to bring it home. I never heard Baffert whine like a little bitch after two times losing the Belmont. the triple crown will again be won by a special horse......why now the need to change the rules and cheapen the standard? If they make changes, call it something else, because it won't be the triple crown anymore.

IMO Chrome is a good horse, with crap bloodlines, and had a great three year old season in a rather weak year for 3 year olds. Personally I am glad he was not the horse to do it. He is not a great horse IMO. NEXT.

[MakoShark]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/changing-the-dates--not-the-rules--is-the-best-way-to-fix-horse-racing-s-triple-crown-210620100.html

ELMONT, N.Y. – Steve Coburn set a new standard for sore losers Saturday, but his timing was impeccable.

Plenty of people hated the fact that the co-owner of California Chrome shot off his mouth like a Roman candle just minutes after his colt lost at the Belmont Stakes. But what better time to get the attention of the nation focused on how to fix a broken Triple Crown? It was a topic on CNN, NBC and plenty of other national platforms Sunday.

Considering the breadth of discussion in the aftermath of yet another Belmont buzzkill, I'd say Coburn did a great job reaching his audience.

Buried beneath the shock value of calling the connections of winning horse Tonalist "cowards" and "cheaters" is the substance of a strong argument. Coburn's horse was asked to perform what has become the unnatural – and, in my opinion, the impossible. We won't see another Triple Crown winner until the format is changed.

Coburn would like to change the rules. I would like to change the dates.

I don't agree with Coburn's assertion that horses should not be allowed to skip legs of the Triple Crown. It's not realistic to limit the pool for the three races to the 20 who enter the Kentucky Derby – the attrition would leave us with an even punier Preakness and a threadbare Belmont. In an ideal world, the top horses in the nation would compete in all three races – but that doesn't fit with the modern reality of horse racing.

Which is why changing the calendar is the best solution.

The hidebound traditionalists who have helped diminish racing to fringe-sport status will fight it to the death. But we may actually be approaching a tipping point in the push to space out the dates of the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont.

Currently, they are five weeks apart – the Derby on the first Saturday in May, the Preakness two weeks later and the Belmont three weeks after that. Maryland Jockey Club president Tom Chuckas is pushing to move the Preakness to the first Saturday in June, and hoping the Belmont will follow suit and move to the first Saturday in July – or, my preference, to the Fourth of July.

It would give the best horse a fighting chance on a more level playing field, but I'm not sure it would make the task of winning all three races easier. Right now, the Preakness is pretty close to a walkover because so many horses skip it to wait for the Belmont, which has become a trap favoring the well-rested and New York-based horses. Filling all three races with high-level competitors would hardly lessen the task.

An industry insider told me Sunday that the New York Racing Association has shown very little enthusiasm for moving its race to accommodate the Preakness' proposed move. The interesting scenario would be if Chuckas' group acted unilaterally, moving its race without regard for what the NYRA did or did not do with the Belmont. It would almost certainly help the Preakness become a better race while also drawing away some of the star power of the Belmont, but it would kill the Triple Crown to have the second and third legs a week apart.

This is yet another pitfall of a sport that lacks unified national leadership. There is no commissioner of horse racing, no governing body. Every racetrack ownership group is in it for themselves.

If anyone can affect change, it might have to be NBC using its clout.

Regardless, there is no doubt that the Triple Crown as it currently exists is obsolete. As I've stated (many times), horses simply aren't bred and trained to run three times in five weeks anymore. At most, they tend to run once a month – and often with at least one lengthy break from racing per year. California Chrome trainer Art Sherman, a septuagenarian old schooler, said his ideal timing between races is seven weeks.

The analogy I've made is that it's like asking a baseball pitcher to throw three complete games in a week. They may have done that in the early 20th century, but they sure don't now. And the same can be said for thoroughbreds, which once ran far more often than they do today.

Yet the Triple Crown remains the same unrealistic grind. It's as if human beings shrank to a maximum height of 5 feet 6 but kept basketball goals at 10 feet, then everyone complained about the lack of dunking.

The hidebound are already preemptively grumbling about how changing the dates would cheapen winning the Triple Crown. It wouldn't cheapen the Triple Crown; it would simply return it to the realm of the possible. At present it is unattainable, and I'm glad Steve Coburn opened his big mouth to criticize it.

[thelightningwill]

Fuck changing shit. Tradition is the only good thing about horse racing. Well, beers and bitches and gambling are good too. But I'm too broke to buy track beers or gamble and too neutered to give a shit about bitches anymore.

What's so great about winning the Triple Crown? Because it's so incredibly difficult and rare. Make it easier and, after a few years, nobody will care about it anymore. At least I won't.

[thelightningwill]

I just saw that Wilford Brimley, California Chrome's owner, apologized to Robin Roberts and the world for trash talking after losing the Belmont. He didn't need to apologize. If one can't trash talk and get angry over losing a shot at the Triple Crown, when exactly is it okay to trash talk and get angry? People get offended too easily. If Michael Jordan and Lawrence Taylor were playing today, they would put every American into a permanent state of shock.

[Beerman]

Yea the whole point of the triple crown is that it is ridiculously difficult to win. Making it easier would just make it pointless.

[Panamamike]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/changin...210620100.html

ELMONT, N.Y. – Steve Coburn set a new standard for sore losers Saturday, but his timing was impeccable.

Plenty of people hated the fact that the co-owner of California Chrome shot off his mouth like a Roman candle just minutes after his colt lost at the Belmont Stakes. But what better time to get the attention of the nation focused on how to fix a broken Triple Crown? It was a topic on CNN, NBC and plenty of other national platforms Sunday.

Considering the breadth of discussion in the aftermath of yet another Belmont buzzkill, I'd say Coburn did a great job reaching his audience.

Buried beneath the shock value of calling the connections of winning horse Tonalist "cowards" and "cheaters" is the substance of a strong argument. Coburn's horse was asked to perform what has become the unnatural – and, in my opinion, the impossible. We won't see another Triple Crown winner until the format is changed.

Coburn would like to change the rules. I would like to change the dates.

I don't agree with Coburn's assertion that horses should not be allowed to skip legs of the Triple Crown. It's not realistic to limit the pool for the three races to the 20 who enter the Kentucky Derby – the attrition would leave us with an even punier Preakness and a threadbare Belmont. In an ideal world, the top horses in the nation would compete in all three races – but that doesn't fit with the modern reality of horse racing.

Which is why changing the calendar is the best solution.

The hidebound traditionalists who have helped diminish racing to fringe-sport status will fight it to the death. But we may actually be approaching a tipping point in the push to space out the dates of the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont.

Currently, they are five weeks apart – the Derby on the first Saturday in May, the Preakness two weeks later and the Belmont three weeks after that. Maryland Jockey Club president Tom Chuckas is pushing to move the Preakness to the first Saturday in June, and hoping the Belmont will follow suit and move to the first Saturday in July – or, my preference, to the Fourth of July.

It would give the best horse a fighting chance on a more level playing field, but I'm not sure it would make the task of winning all three races easier. Right now, the Preakness is pretty close to a walkover because so many horses skip it to wait for the Belmont, which has become a trap favoring the well-rested and New York-based horses. Filling all three races with high-level competitors would hardly lessen the task.

An industry insider told me Sunday that the New York Racing Association has shown very little enthusiasm for moving its race to accommodate the Preakness' proposed move. The interesting scenario would be if Chuckas' group acted unilaterally, moving its race without regard for what the NYRA did or did not do with the Belmont. It would almost certainly help the Preakness become a better race while also drawing away some of the star power of the Belmont, but it would kill the Triple Crown to have the second and third legs a week apart.

This is yet another pitfall of a sport that lacks unified national leadership. There is no commissioner of horse racing, no governing body. Every racetrack ownership group is in it for themselves.

If anyone can affect change, it might have to be NBC using its clout.

Regardless, there is no doubt that the Triple Crown as it currently exists is obsolete. As I've stated (many times), horses simply aren't bred and trained to run three times in five weeks anymore. At most, they tend to run once a month – and often with at least one lengthy break from racing per year. California Chrome trainer Art Sherman, a septuagenarian old schooler, said his ideal timing between races is seven weeks.

The analogy I've made is that it's like asking a baseball pitcher to throw three complete games in a week. They may have done that in the early 20th century, but they sure don't now. And the same can be said for thoroughbreds, which once ran far more often than they do today.

Yet the Triple Crown remains the same unrealistic grind. It's as if human beings shrank to a maximum height of 5 feet 6 but kept basketball goals at 10 feet, then everyone complained about the lack of dunking.

The hidebound are already preemptively grumbling about how changing the dates would cheapen winning the Triple Crown. It wouldn't cheapen the Triple Crown; it would simply return it to the realm of the possible. At present it is unattainable, and I'm glad Steve Coburn opened his big mouth to criticize it.

They said the same crap before Secretariat as well. Then had 3 TC winners in short order.

[MakoShark]

There are some good arguements to make changes is all I'm saying. It sounds like panamamike knows the sport pretty good, and he's solidly against any change. But, to play devils advocate, I agree with the writer in that to bring more attention to the sport (pull it in from the fringes) a Triple Crown that is realistically possible should be on the table. Right now, I don't think it is. For all the reasons stated in the article, the Triple Crown is out of reach and I don't think we will see another winner...ever. Horse owners are in it for themselves and would rather win 1 big race to establish a 'Champion' bloodline for the sole purpose of breeding.

With time, all sports change. They grow, they evolve, they morph into something different than they were when they began. Horse racing is one of the oldest sports in history, but because of a lack of a central governing body and the 'every man for himself' mentality the sport lingers in obscurity until a horse like California Chrome comes along and makes things interesting. Would the NFL be as popular if we went back to the days of no playoffs and just played a championship game? Would the baseball Triple Crown be deminished if a DH won it? Horse racings Triple Crown is what brings the sport to the for-front. It is obsolete in the current format. Spacing out the races (and we're not even talking about adding that much time between races) would really help the sport and wouldn't tarnish the prestige of the Triple Crown in the slightest. I really like the idea of the Belmont being run on the 4th of July. Independance Day, the threat of a Triple Crown Champion in the air, what an event that would make! What could be any more American than that?