2014 Belmont Stakes

[manning]

Kudos to California Chrome. The $10,000 horse made good. Just fell a bit short today. Kudos also to Ride on Curlin and General A-Rod, the only other two horses to race in all three triple crown races. And a big raspberry to all those that deliberately rested their horses that were perfectly good to go. That's a gutless thing to do.

Good point. Perhaps to qualify for the trophy all the horses involved should run in all three races.

By the way, that $10,00 horse so far has won over 3 million dollars

 

[sam_gordon]

Kudos to California Chrome. The $10,000 horse made good. Just fell a bit short today. Kudos also to Ride on Curlin and General A-Rod, the only other two horses to race in all three triple crown races. And a big raspberry to all those that deliberately rested their horses that were perfectly good to go. That's a gutless thing to do.

Sorry, to me that sounds like sour grapes. If Chrome hadn't won the Preakness, no one would be complaining.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

 

[JessicaR]

Good point. Perhaps to qualify for the trophy all the horses involved should run in all three races.

By the way, that $10,00 horse so far has won over 3 million dollars

Perhaps, except that isn't the case. So may the best horse that runs 'that' race win. If not re-qualify the rules?

I wanted California chrome to take it, so badly. But, congratualtions to the winner!

 

[JessicaR]

Sorry, to me that sounds like sour grapes. If Chrome hadn't won the Preakness, no one would be complaining.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

the owner needed to bite his tongue! It sure did sound like sour grapes to me also.

Absolutely a stunning horse California chrome and i wished him to win!

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Sorry, to me that sounds like sour grapes. If Chrome hadn't won the Preakness, no one would be complaining.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

Considering I've been saying the same thing for a few years, well your sour grapes charge is meaningless.

Good point. Perhaps to qualify for the trophy all the horses involved should run in all three races.

I really don't know how to change things and if you make things too stringent, you might end up with a 4 horse Preakness and a two horse Belmont Stakes. I don't think anyone truly wants that either least of all me. But it just seems to me there were a lot of people that just deliberately skipped races this year just to rest up perfectly good horses. Gutless. Simply Gutless.

 

[mikehn]

No way should anything be changed. That's how its been, and that's the way it should be. Imagine changing the rules for the superbowl or the world series just to get a certain outcome. No way.

 

[Minnie]

Sour grapes from the owner - as much as I liked California Chrome neither the Derby nor Preakness was an outstanding run away performance.

 

[LBIJim]

I wanted California chrome to take it, so badly. But, congratualtions to the winner!

I watched out of curiosity waiting for hockey to come on. Yeah, it would have been great to see a Triple Crown winner, but oh well.

I like how you said congratulations to the "winner." Not sure about you, but I've already forgotten the winner's name. It's not like NBC mentioned it all that much. 99% of the talk was California Chrome. I'm surprised NBC even acknowledged the other horses.

Jim

 

[disneygirl1024]

I really wanted California Chrome to win. Beautiful horse but injured himself on the back side of his front heel so I have a feeling that have been what slowed him down. Those are pretty painful injuries to a horse.

On another note, to the person that said they had a crush on Steve Cauthen, my brother went to school with his brother and I was a measley 7th grader when his brother was a senior, but man was he a hottie!!! Very nice family. His dad and mom are wonderful people. I got to meet them a time or two due to me being into horses in the town they lived in. Steve now has a horse farm the next town over from where I grew up!

 

[PizzieDuster]

Sorry, to me that sounds like sour grapes. If Chrome hadn't won the Preakness, no one would be complaining.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using DISBoards

Amen. This is not what we teach our sons. What a sore loser. Even what he says does make sense...that was not the time to do it. To shrugg off your wife's hand and to turn around and yell at her when she asked to stop.

I feel bad that his immediate inteview after the race was the last impression my daughter watched. And just the hour before, he asked why they even needed a PR person. Well, there you go. Even the announcers - there were some seconds before they said that side of him, they have never seen "the bitterness" before. I could see how the owners believed in all the hype. I was disappointed in his statement and no longer care anymore.

"This is a coward's way out!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx8G8Hrumk

But I am open to other's opinions. I admit, I know nothing about horse racing. I just thought it was sour WATERMELONS and it looked bad.

The comments he made, was this something that has been argued before? Are there any rules? Or was he just stating his own opinion on a topic that has never been brought up? See, told ya I have no idea about horse racing.

 

[sam_gordon]

Considering I've been saying the same thing for a few years, well your sour grapes charge is meaningless.

If you say so. One of Chrome's owners made the same case either before the Preakness or right after. That's the first time I've heard the claim and there's been plenty of opportunities (12, now 13?) for Triple Crown champions since Affirmed.

I really don't know how to change things and if you make things too stringent, you might end up with a 4 horse Preakness and a two horse Belmont Stakes. I don't think anyone truly wants that either least of all me. But it just seems to me there were a lot of people that just deliberately skipped races this year just to rest up perfectly good horses. Gutless. Simply Gutless.

So you criticize those folks who follow the rules, but don't think the rules should be changed. Who knows why they skipped races. It really doesn't matter (to me at least). California Chrome didn't win. Period. He apparently got hurt during the race. It happens.

I remember a Breeders Cup a couple years ago. Everyone was talking about Big Brown. He was supposed to run away with the Classic. That's all everyone was talking about. Did it happen? Nope.

 

[Jennasis]

Yeesh...Wilford Brimley was upset huh? LOL.

I get it. He's crushed over the loss. Were his comments new? NO. Were they legitimate complaints? PERHAPS. Were they very ill-timed? OH YEAH. But I get it. I'm not "disappointed in him". He's human with feelings. And I get the impression that he says it the way he sees it on everything. He's not a role model. Nobody is.

As for horse racing...the problem is the partially the breeding. TB's are not being bred to run the way they were back in the day. And they aren't running nearly as often as they used to. Remember Secretariat? He was a mutant. Literally....a genetic oddity with a MASSIVE oversized heart. That's why he was able to win the Belmont by 31 lengths. He was a freak of nature, and never passed any of that on to his offspring.

The owner said, far less eloquently, what others have been thinking and saying for years. Horse racing is not for the faint of heart. Losing is part and parcel of the game.

 

[WDWBarb]

Yeesh...Wilford Brimley was upset huh? LOL. I get it. He's crushed over the loss. Were his comments new? NO. Were they legitimate complaints? PERHAPS. Were they very ill-timed? OH YEAH. But I get it. I'm not "disappointed in him". He's human with feelings. And I get the impression that he says it the way he sees it on everything. He's not a role model. Nobody is. As for horse racing...the problem is the partially the breeding. TB's are not being bred to run the way they were back in the day. And they aren't running nearly as often as they used to. Remember Secretariat? He was a mutant. Literally....a genetic oddity with a MASSIVE oversized heart. That's why he was able to win the Belmont by 31 lengths. He was a freak of nature, and never passed any of that on to his offspring. The owner said, far less eloquently, what others have been thinking and saying for years. Horse racing is not for the faint of heart. Losing is part and parcel of the game.

I'd use that thumbs-up smiley but I'm on my mobile.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

The comments he made, was this something that has been argued before? Are there any rules? Or was he just stating his own opinion on a topic that has never been brought up? See, told ya I have no idea about horse racing.

Yes it has been argued, and also by him. Just not so much on national TV as it has been this year. As for the rules, a horse that is qualified can sit out one or even two of the three triple crown races. It just doesn't seem sporting to me. Also, a horse that did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby can if he is qualified race in the Preakness or Belmont. There are other rules such as which drugs can be used, and under what conditions a horse is cleared to race vs cannot race due to injury or illness, etc etc that vary by state and thus vary for the three triple crown races.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

If you say so.
.

If I say so? Well yes I do say so. I've made the argument before the Belmont. So once again your sour grapes allegation against me is baseless. Do you have anything to add better than an ad-hominem attack?

So you criticize those folks who follow the rules, but don't think the rules should be changed.

Red-Herring. I never said the rules shouldn't be changed. What I said was I really don't know how to change things and if you make things too restricting, you could end up with a 4 horse Preakness and 2 horse Belmont. That doesn't mean I don't think the rules should be changed. And heck yes I'm going to criticize all those owners that deliberately held perfectly good horses out of the Preakness.

That's the first time I've heard the claim and there's been plenty of opportunities (12, now 13?) for Triple Crown champions since Affirmed.

Just because you don't see it on one of the two or three telecasts you watch a year doesn't mean it hasn't come up. And I find it interesting you should mention Affirmed. Well there was another horse that year that should be mentioned by the name of Alydar. Imagine if Alydar's owners had been gutless and kept him out of the Preakness. Not only would we not have seen the great stretch run of the Preakness, but we would not have seen one of the best stretch runs in history at the Belmont and Affirmed would have no triple crown as Alydar would have romped with the extra rest. Quite frankly, that would have been cheap.

 

[AverageDiser]

Of the 12 triple crown wins, only three have happened since 1969, when the dates of the races were changed and moved closer together, giving fresher horses an advantage, particularly at Belmont. One of those was Secretariat, who, as another poster noted, had an anatomical advantage to begin with. Currently the Maryland Jockey's Assc is trying to get the dates changed so that advantage is lessened. The Derby would stay the same, the Preakness would be the 1st Sat in June, and the Belmont the 1st Sat in July.

 

[jrmasm]

Of the 12 triple crown wins, only three have happened since 1969, when the dates of the races were changed and moved closer together, giving fresher horses an advantage, particularly at Belmont. One of those was Secretariat, who, as another poster noted, had an anatomical advantage to begin with. Currently the Maryland Jockey's Assc is trying to get the dates changed so that advantage is lessened. The Derby would stay the same, the Preakness would be the 1st Sat in June, and the Belmont the 1st Sat in July.

3 have done it, so it can be done.

It's not supposed to be easy.

 

[robinb]

Of the 12 triple crown wins, only three have happened since 1969, when the dates of the races were changed and moved closer together, giving fresher horses an advantage, particularly at Belmont. One of those was Secretariat, who, as another poster noted, had an anatomical advantage to begin with. Currently the Maryland Jockey's Assc is trying to get the dates changed so that advantage is lessened. The Derby would stay the same, the Preakness would be the 1st Sat in June, and the Belmont the 1st Sat in July.

That's interesting. I didn't know the dates had been moved up. Even if they move the races out a week or two it would be better for the horses and I think the public would be able to stay involved.

I don't know much about horse racing, but I think that Steve Coburn has a point. Here is an interesting piece of trivia: http://online.wsj.com/articles/tonalist-wins-belmont-stakes-1402182624

In the last decade, only one horse who won either the Derby or the Preakness has gone on to win the Belmont: Afleet Alex in 2005. Since 1978, the Kentucky Derby winner has run the Belmont Stakes 27 times, but only two have won.

It would be nice if all the Triple Crown races would have a shared qualification metric like the Kentucky Derby that is set by the time the Triple Crown season starts but that each race can make more stringent. the fact the Tonalist didn't even win a major race until the Peter Pan made him a literal "dark horse". Sadly, I think that things are not going to change because horses like Tonalist make things "exciting" . Personally, I think it's a real shame.

 

[PizzieDuster]

Yes it has been argued, and also by him. Just not so much on national TV as it has been this year. As for the rules, a horse that is qualified can sit out one or even two of the three triple crown races. It just doesn't seem sporting to me. Also, a horse that did not qualify for the Kentucky Derby can if he is qualified race in the Preakness or Belmont. There are other rules such as which drugs can be used, and under what conditions a horse is cleared to race vs cannot race due to injury or illness, etc etc that vary by state and thus vary for the three triple crown races.

Thank you.

I read more about it in the newspapers this morning. Just watching it, I didn't understand. Thanks again everyone.

 

[Jennasis]

3 have done it, so it can be done.

It's not supposed to be easy.

Of the 3, one was a genetic freak as I mentioned earlier. It's not supposed to be easy, but it should be a fair.