Posted on 06/07/2014 2:55:54 PM PDT by Pajamajan
California Chrome is about to run in the Belmont Stakes, known as The Test Of The Champion.
Well, Affirmed in ‘78 faced his main rivals in all three races: Alydar, Believe It, and (I think) Darby Creek Road, who presumably all competed against fresher horses but finished in the money at Belmont anyway.
I tend to think the horses are being bred to be TOO specialized and delicate (according to my horse-breeder FIL).
I would disagree, CC was another great horse that had a chance to make history.........unfortunately it didn't.
But for three weeks there, everybody's spirits were up, hoping we could see history made again...........
Considering the lack of background in this colt and the limited resources spent by its middle class owners, I can't imagine why anyone on this website would find fault with CC's performance today.............
But then again............
Yes. Sporting events. Very important stuff in the overall history of human events. Panem et Circenses, or bread and circuses and all that.
CC broke to the front and got to the rail. When another horse challenged immediately the jockey let up and the race was over for CC.
Isn't it interesting that all the professional "experts" picked Wicked Strong to win, precisely because it was fresh, yet both finished in a nose-to-nose tie, losing to even fresher horses.
CC's owner had it exactly right about stacking the odds by skipping other races (i.e. his diagnosis of the problem's cause and effect was right) but gave probably the wrong prescription to fix it.
Maybe the right cause of action is to advance Belmont another two to three weeks out, so that the horses participating in Preakness could get enough rest and thus nullify, or at least minimize the advantage of having a "fresh" horse. This will change the incentives of owners trying to game the system and put all their hopes on one race where they can "specialize" the horse for distance or the track and have an additional advantage of having fresh legs.
I understand that there are business considerations on part of the track, but they are minor, at best, and for the sake of the "sport" overall it is certainly worthwhile and is not likely to cause undue hardship.
There is a lot more money and more science and more human talent involved in racing today than it was 40 years ago, so adjustments should be made to accommodate the changes. When Wilt Chamberlain and Lew Alcindor show up on the basketball court, the basket gets moved up, because "you can develop talent, but you can't teach 7 feet."
Those of us who saw Secretariat run compare every horse to him. California Chrome was a good horse, but I think the race was tipped for me when his owners made a deal about the nasal strip. That suggested to me they had concerns about his wind. Since it was a mile and a half, I believed them. That’s how it worked out, too. He was in position to win, but there wasn’t any power left to make that huge burst.
Being fair, though, he wasn’t an especially big or small horse, so he gets all the credit in the world for what he accomplished.
But, it would be awesome to see another like Secretariat again. That horse was a work of art.
Chrome was a good horse, but not a Triple Crown-worthy horse.
I agree. I liked the tall cowboy owner. He was real people. A triple crown winner should be reasonably close to the race records.
One thing I liked about the horse was his behavior. He seemed like a contented animal.
Some have criticized the jockey. I think he did just what a jockey is supposed to do, and that’s have the horse in position to win the race. Chrome was in excellent position. He just didn’t have enough gas left in the tank.
CC’s owner is an idiot. The situation has remained the same for the entire existence of the Crown. The prescription is do a better job training horses. They need to be able to win at the Belmont, most of the horses in the Derby have never been there, and then they get there, and they lose.
Nobody is gaming a system. The Belmont Stakes has entry rules which do NOT require participation in a previous Crown race, and have NEVER required it. All the horses today qualified for the race within the rules. The same basic rules the competition against all previous Crown winners have faced.
Your adjustment example is the exact opposite. Basketball realized the talent pool had changed so they made the game HARDER. Putting more time between the races would make it easier.
Owners that want to win the Crown need to race their horses at Belmont. The horse needs to be able to win at Belmont, it’s the hardest of the races. People who enter their horses in the Derby without having them first race (and win) at Belmont are volunteer to not win the Crown.
“It’s Rubber Band in the stretch, and Toilet Paper wiping up the rear!!!”
;-)
I forgot that one!!! hehehe
It would make the race more evenly matched, and easier on the horses physically. This would be good for the betting public too.
That said-California Chrome did fine today. It's still a great story. He's already done the impossible in even winning the first 2 races of the TC. He finished best of the horses that did run in all three races, and he still tried his heart out to win. Give him some rest and a re-match race with the horses that finished in front of him - I bet he easily beats all of them.
As for the results- The owner may have gone off emotionally over the heartbreaking loss, but he brought up a good question: Is it fair to have fresh horses running in the Belmont?
Ultimately, it doesn't seem right IMO.
It isn't good for horse racing in the long run either. A whole lot of people watching/betting on a horse race for the first time today- went home disappointed, and probably won't come back.
Something needs to change -Others have also suggested a longer time period ( or the same amount of time) between the three races?
Anyway I will be looking forward to seeing California Chrome run again.
I’m not at the end of the thread here, but he cut his hoof out of the gate:
https://twitter.com/JohnCKilgore/status/475483196076085248
and
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jun/07/belmont-stakes-california-chrome-inury/
That colt has miles of heart. I was rooting for him.
If true, then it really wouldn't have mattered, if all the horses ran the other two races or not.
True, and two separate issues to consider.
In reading Discostu’s comments about maybe moving Belmont out and definitely having Derby entrants winning in NY as a prep... those both make a lot of sense.
I think the races should remain independent of each other.
"Rules," "requirements" - that's completely missing the point. "Gaming the system" is exactly the game of using the circumstances for the purpose of gaining advantage within the confinement of rules and requirements. In this case, it's the very short period of time for the horse to recover after two grueling races, to compete in a race that already tests the stamina of the horse.
In other words, taking advantage of what in human terms is often called a "schedule conflict."
Who said they couldn't or wouldn't, given enough time to recover from Preakness? Not to mention that your prescription of spending [more] time training the horse at Belmont would cost significant amount of money for owners (especially the ones farther from North East) and would make it even more difficult to develop a TC winner for someone of more modest means - which is the case with Dumbass Partners - and would make it even easier for more "local" or very wealthy / corporate owners. Is that really a desirable outcome?
All I heard during pre-race commentary was not the relative strengths and weaknesses of the horses but only that Wicked Strong was the favorite because it didn't compete in the Preakness and was "fresher," and that 4 out of last 5 races was won by a horse that didn't compete in either Derby or Preakness.
Where is the fairness in that? I keep seeing the comments that all things and conditions in the race were "equal" when they clearly weren't equal - some owners chose for their horses to be unencumbered by prior races because they clearly understood the great advantages (and lower expenses) of fresh legs. In other words, horses who currently compete in Preakness are naturally disadvantaged compared with those that don't.
Moving Belmont a few weeks out would, if not level the playing field, significantly minimize the disadvantage and [probably] put a stop to much of this kind of nonsense.
I think that's what Steve Coburn's point was about, though I disagree with his prescription to remedy the situation, as it is artificial and might put the undue burden on other owners and horses. But what is so "controversial" and what would be the disadvantage of extending the time between races a few weeks?
I think you missed the point again, even though you recognized that the adjustment had to be made by the NBA in response to changing conditions and circumstances of the game.
The NBA moved the basket higher because 7-footers had the "unfair" advantage over 6-footers with the low-hanging "fruit"... er, basket. The point was not to make the GAME harder but to make it harder FOR the 7-footers to realize their relative height advantages over 6+ foot "shorties" (i.e., "you can't teach height") - the correlation in horse racing would be to reduce / minimize the relative advantage of "fresh vs tired" - something that horses have no control over. So then, "Putting more time between the races would make it..." more of a level-playing field, minimizing the affects of now "naturally"-occuring disadvantage of "conflict schedule."
What's more, the basket height change was somewhat disruptive for all the players - everybody, including the "shorties," had to adjust to new height. Moving Belmont to the end of June wouldn't be at all disruptive, it wouldn't otherwise change an iota or rules and requirements by Belmont, not one yard less for horses to run and not a thing for any horse or any owner, unless there is some big "schedule conflict" I am not aware of, or unless climate change makes end of June less palatable for racing than the beginning of June.
-------
Exactly. He also photo-finished with the near-consensus favorite of the experts, which had the advantage of skipping Preakness. It was so clear that CC was just too tired to pull off a win, that conclusion as to why was obvious, but that doesn't make him any lesser horse.
Yeah, I understand why some people throw the usual "sore loser" jabs at Coburn, but the man made a great point in addressing the basic unfairness issue out in the open, even if it flew right through their ears. Particularly for neophytes like me who could not possibly know that the conditions were not really "equal" until pre-race commentators started talking about "fresh legs" and "skipping Preakness" and gave stats about the last 5 races winners.
My immediate comment was: "So, the owners are 'cheating' to be spoilers because they don't think their horses have what it takes to be real winners" - maybe harsh, but really just stating the fact.
"Same" amount of time isn't necessary and it doesn't change anything if it's not long enough for horses to recover. Length of the time to recover between races matters, having them exactly the "same" doesn't.
Absolutely right. I love horses but I am not a [horse / dog] racing aficionado. The reason I was watching this Belmont was due to great company of people and dogs accompanied by good food and near-festive atmosphere. None were participating, interested in or talked about betting, though many are very bright people with an exceptionally good understanding of probability and game theories.
If I know that during next Belmont the "talk of the town" is going to be "fresh horse vs tired horse" - that kind of event may not happen or we could find some other reason to gather.
The reason these races are even remotely special for many not generally interest in "sport" is because of Triple Crown, not a single event, i.e., they are linked by organizers to generate hype and interest among "commoners" - if people realize that the TC game as it exists now is rigged against a potential TC winner, there goes the hype and a lot of money along with it. Steve Coburn has done a great service for the horses and business, even if some (including "snarky" Bob Costas) can't see past last hour to appreciate that.
Part of the problem with this is people believe CC’s owner when he said the horses CC went up against were “fresh”. They weren’t. The horses that finished 1 and 2 yesterday also finished 1 and 2 in the Peter Pan, which happens the week before the Preakness also at Belmont. So they at best had one more week of rest, but had raced a longer race.
It’s not spend more time training at Belmont it’s spend ANY time RACING at Belmont. That’s the key to winning the Crown have a horse that can win at Belmont. A horse owner that wants the Crown should follow a simple rule: run them early at Belmont, if they win follow the path necessary to qualify for the Derby, if they don’t better luck next year because they WON’T win the Crown. If that prescription makes it easier for some owners to win the Crown then why hasn’t anybody? The fact is owners really aren’t going for the Crown anymore. Owners put their horses in the Derby because it’s prestigious and fun, then one of them wins, so then the (usually) run that horse in the Preakness and maybe they win, and then everybody forgets the lessons of history and thinks that horse has a chance in the Belmont even though he’s never raced there, and he loses, often to a horse that has a successful history at the Belmont, then people whine and say the system needs to change. The only part of the system that needs to change is owners actually trying to win the Crown from the start, rather than on a lark because they happened to win the Derby.
Moving the Belmont out wouldn’t level the playing field. It would just mean there’d be a couple more weeks of hype before our Crown “contender” whose never raced at Belmont before lost to a horse that probably had. If this Belmont was 2 weeks from now then CC still faces the same competition, competition that’s still had one more week of rest, competition that had already come in 1 and 2 at that track, and loses to them because they can race at Belmont and CC can’t.
The NBA didn’t move the hoops up because 7 footers had an advantage over 6 footers. They moved the hoops up because they were getting so many players so much taller than 6 feet. Their population of players had made the old hoop height no longer a challenge, so they increased it. Same reason the NFL moved the goal posts back (and needs to make another adjustment), kickers had gotten too good, so they made it harder.
The TC clearly doesn’t need an adjustment. It CAN be won with the races organized exactly the way they are, it HAS been. What needs to change is the owners, they need to prep their horses for this challenge before going to the Derby rather than entering the Derby and seeing what happens.
Nail on the head, nail...on...the...head.
Just to add for the benefit of others - If these are “completely separate” races, then there should be no official “Triple Crown” title. Since there is, as in every other sport, competition should be structured to support running in all three races that comprise the sequence. The equivalent would be allowing a runner to sit-out until the final race after other runners have done qualifying races. It seems odd to me that horse racing is the only sport to allow this.
The bottom line is Chrome was not a TC-worthy horse. There’s no shame in that, there’s only been 11. But if you water it down by requiring horses to race in the other two TC events, it won’t mean anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.