Steve Coburn Decides to Save His Career in Horse Racing

 zevon wrote: 

Hey Z!
 
I think Coburn's comments have intuitive appeal, but I have  to agree with points made by N4ku and SFW.

If one were to confine the field in the Preakness and Belmont to horses that had run in the Derby, as Coburn suggested, it would seem that the fields for those races would become even smaller than they are now.  I'm not sure why horses that run in the Derby but choose not to run in the Preakness or Belmont would be enticed to enter those races by such a system.  Maybe they would, but that would mean the primary reason they are not running in those races now is to avoid fresher horses.  I guess that is possible, but it seems there are more and better reasons why their owners pull them after the Derby, to regroup and race another day. Your proposal that a horse be required to run in either the Derby or the Preakness to be eligible to run in the Belmont has more appeal than Coburn's all-or-nothing approach. . But, again, very few of the horses that ran in the Derby ran in the Belmont, and I think that usually is the case.  

Then there is the big variable of the 1.5-mile Belmont.  Those horses have never run a race that far.  There is no telling what may happen in that race because of that alone — which makes it particularly exciting when a horse is seeking the Triple Crown .  Did Chrome not have a strong enough kick because the horse was tired after winning the Derby and Preakness in the preceding 5 weeks, or did it tire because it was not used to the 1.5 miles?  Maybe a combination.  Maybe, as some have opined, it was because Espinosa got him locked in on the rail surrounded by horses for a little too long.  

There is no doubt that a Triple Crown winner is something the public would love to see, and it could provide a boost for a sport that needs one. Making changes that would make it easier for a horse to win all three would accomplish that purpose, but the cost would be that the feat might be seen as less than it had been.  A change could diminish the accomplishment.  We probably would have a situation analogous to Maris  matching Ruth but with a 162-game schedule instead of 154,. asterisk attached to  accomplishment.  .                

  .          

 n4ku wrote: 
As much as I agreed with zevon and Coburn's point of view (it's got to be exasperating to get to the Belmont and have *that* happen), this is correct, plus the fact that nothing's changed—There have always been different horses in each race. The triple crown is a difficult achievement because of all of these factors. Maybe we'll never see another! It's the chase that's exciting. It's having one horse win the first two that gets people talking about horse racing. If Chrome had won the Derby and the Belmont, or Preakness and Belmont, nobody would know his name. Win the first two and you're famous. Win all 3 and you're legendary, but you aren't owed legendary status, you can't write it into the rulebooks to make it easier to attain.

One last thought. That was really poor sportsmanship.

 zevon wrote: 
Horse racing is still a pretty big thing here.  Melbourne Cup day is a state holiday.  It's maybe 1/3 about the race, 1/3 about beautiful women all frocked up wearing beautiful hats, and 1/3 about getting pissed. But face it, any sport that revolves around gambling is going to be sleezy.  Still, the horses are great athletes an beautiful to watch.  I'm not a big fan but I can see the attraction in that.

I don't think a triple crown winner would be that great for the sport because a sport can't exist on 3 races a year.  In fact, I think the sport would be better off if those 3 races went away and they waited until horses were older and had stronger bones.  The kiddy-porn of horse racing.

Last couple of years we had a lot of excitement around the filly Black Caviar who retired undefeated.  She nearly lost at Ascott in England because the jockey let up too soon but she saw the other horses and put on an amazing acceleration to win by the proverbial nose.  Her last few races were a bit of a joke - it looked like they had to pay people to race against her and stacked the cards so she would win.  The tracks made money from people betting on her just to say they did.  But she was amazing to watch.

 zevon wrote: 
That would be fine with me, as would the passing of any "sport" than involves the exploitation/abuse of animals.

 n4ku wrote: 
Yep, it's the part no one really wants to know. Greyhound racing is brutal too, having owned two retired racers it's awful to think what they go through, sweet defenseless animals.

 You are probably right, maybe nothing can save racing. Maybe it shouldn't be saved... I think we can agree that it would have been nice to have a "hero", and that certainly wouldn't have been Coburn or his DAP, but Chrome his ownself. 

 zevon wrote: 
A part of my family made a living breeding thoroughbreds, and I have worked on horse farms. I love these animals, but the reality of the business is a lot more ruthless than most people think. Horses are a commodity to those who invest the money to keep the industry going. If a horse can't deliver on that investment, their fate is not pretty. Hell, a Kentucky Derby winner went to the slaughterhouse when it was discovered he was sterile. That's pretty fucking cold blooded. I am not defending that sort of thing. I think it is awful. I am just pointing out the cold, hard, reality of the business.

 n4ku wrote: 
Good points Aalln, and you are right in the middle of the heartland, much closer to the sport than I. I totally agree about the fragility of 3 year olds, I have a friend who raises horses - not thoroughbreds, she has little use for racing - and she has told me that they aren't that strong and it would be much better on the animals if they weren't raced until at least five years old. But ya know with all this money to be made (not by you and me, LOL) , who gives a shit about the piece of meat, right? Sad but true. :(

 zevon wrote: 
I don't think even a Triple Crown winner can save horse racing. There's a reason all the track owners want to open casinos in their grandstands. The average person thinks racing is a fixed game played by the ultra rich. And I am not too sure they aren't right.

Requiring all horses who want to run in one of the races to run in all three races will kill the series for sure. You would have three two-horse match races. Three year old thoroughbreds are fragile animals, and their owners should not be made to risk their lives for your enjoyment. And not all horses run well at all distances. Some are better at races like the Belmont than at a shorter distance like the Derby. If a trainer or owner chooses to only run in one, or two of these races, so be it. It's their expensive piece of meat, not mine.

 zevon wrote:I take your point.  Horse racing could certainly benefit from a positive event, which a Triple Crown Winner would certainly provide. An element of tarnish on horse racing has been mitigated by this wonderful place. I have visited there and was very touched.  Clever Allemont recently died there at 32. His is a story worthy of another post someday.

 steeler wrote: 
Hey Man O' Steel :)

While his rant is ill timed and pretty much graceless I agree 100% with what he is trying to say.

Horse racing, like boxing, has pretty much fallen off the map except for hardcore fans and gamblers. What both sports need is a hero, someone who stimulates interest in the sport and brings new fans in as a result. Screw boxing, because this topic isn't about boxing, but just sayin' - pretty much everybody, young/old, male/female knows who Muhammed Ali, Joe Frazier and Secretariat were (in Ali's case, "are"). Who won last years Kentucky Derby? Who is the current heavyweight champ? While you and I may very well know I'd bet you couldn't get 20 man on the street people out of 100 that could correctly answer either question. Well, maybe higher in KY, LOL.
I firmly believe the only thing that can stimulate interest in horse racing is a Triple Crown Winner. It would be the best thing that could happen the the sport, which today still desperately needs a hero. There are no household names. So for all the media and horse racing figures who are making a BIG STORY out of Coburn's comments, demanding an apology, and standing behind the faux "for the good of the sport" shield to further their own agendas and politically correct popularity, here's a hearty "Fuck You" from me. Pull your heads out people, and realize what would be the best thing for the good of the sport...
I don't know what point system Coburn was referring to, but I do think that a horse should have to run in either the Derby or the Preakness to be eligible for the Belmont. Of the three that finished in the money yesterday, only Medal Count ran in another TC race (Derby). Truly not a level playing field.
Horse racing is getting a lot of pub today, it's in the HEADLINES! Unfortunately the pub is all negative.  Mr Coburn, while your PC skills and delivery need some work, your message rings true. Too bad most people won't get the message, but thanks for having the balls to put it out there.

 steeler wrote: 
Just read in the paper that the last six eligible triple crown winners were  beaten by horses that skipped the KD, Preakness, or like Saturday, both.
Nothing wrong with setting the bar very high.  Someday a horse will do it.  That horse will be a true champion.

 steeler wrote: 
That was FREAKY!

 katzendogs wrote: 
Wow. Steve Coburn is not happy. labeling the fresh horses as taking the coward's way out.

BAM!

Anyone watching 2014?