The Racing Hub - All Comments

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

LPCAL — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 23:48:33 GMT

Very well put. I have made similar comments elsewhere on this website only to be met with derision and hostility. How sad is it that the very people invested in the sport cannot recognize that the sport has become all about poor sportsmanship?? The TC winners of yore faced the same horses, all racing back to back races. It was just how it was done; unwritten rules I suppose.

Now the "sport" seems to be knocking off the winner of the Derby with fresh horses in the next 2 legs.

The same people that support this will likely scratch their heads in wonder at the demise of horse racing.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

wjfraz — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:37:09 GMT

There is a trend to downplay the achievements of the "little" guys in racing. I ran a horse the other day and the HRTV and TVG guys were ebullient in the praise of a couple of high profile trainers in the race, and at the same time made snide remarks about "no win trainer; no win owner" in dismissing my filly even though she is by Tapit and had had several good races albeit a while back. She promptly dispatched the field and won for fun but the rude remarks continued. I find it appalling that these folks gush over the "big" guys but fail to realize that without those that know we are up against it each time we race but do it for the love of the sport, the "big" guys could not race because there would not be enough horses. The smaller barns that fill races make racing go not the stakes horses because statistically, there just are not that many. Hopefully, and I won't hold my breath, they will change but I doubt it.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Paardenshop — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:18:09 GMT

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

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Cassandra.Says — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 08:18:19 GMT

I would like to think that all of the posters in favour of restricting entry in the Belmont have never been among those lamenting the lack of stamina in U.S. breeding, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The Belmont is the one significant showcase for the talents of the dirt stayer, and you want to throw up barriers to stayers running in it? If they must acquire Derby points, they will have to run earlier, in shorter races, than is optimal for their development. (That is, because they often develop more slowly, even less optimal than for milers.)

This Belmont was a clinic on slow twitch/quick twitch muscles. Romans and Pletcher indicated their understanding of the physiology of stamina. Quick twitch muscles are not so much sprinters' muscles as they are emergency speed muscles. They fire quicker. They're used at the break, to regain momentum after a check, to accelerate when headed, to find that extra gear, to make the final lunge at the wire. Deep closing is a strategy to deal with a lack of stamina; if you can have your horse canter the first 4 furlongs of a 12 furlong race, burning the oxygen that he breathes without using up the fuel (glycogen) stored for his quick twitch muscles, you turn it into a mile. If stamina is not a concern, put him on the lead. A grinder needs every yard of head start you can give him, because he can't match acceleration with a horse with a lot of quick twitch capacity closing late. Dale Romans did the right thing putting as much speed into Medal Count as he could. It looked as though MC had been put away, but eventually there he was alongside again. He just didn't have the capacity for instant acceleration. And in the shadow of the wire, the Tapit blood supplied the winning surge.

The (THE) Derby was just won by Australia, by a Derby winner out of an Oaks winner. There are still people who think that's a no-brainer. The Japanese began their breeding programs on this theory, but they learned. This was only the second Derby-on-Oaks-bred winner in centuries. Usually, stamina on stamina gives you hunters.

Secretariat was great, Affirmed was better than Alydar, it's nice to see a race confirm what you already believe. But for me this was one of the great Belmonts, doing what the classics are supposed to do: displaying the breeding qualities of the best colts. I hope not all breeders were watching that fourth/fifth horse. They missed a clinic.

And speaking of which, the scuff on CC's leg wasn't bothering him at all; he was jogging and walking perfectly sound after the race.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Soldier Course — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:56:30 GMT

Rock Man:

I love your post about California Chrome. When I first read it I was puzzled. How can this person say that we have failed the horse in a sense, after all the love that everyone has poured out to him? But I kept thinking about what you said.

Here's what I take from your message: although I am not a Buddhist, I see that perhaps we failed to honor the "present moment" in California Chrome's journey through the three races. As soon as he crossed the finish line at Churchill Downs, we started thinking about the Preakness, and so on. We should have appreciated the fact that he won the Kentucky Derby and a spare, rather than hoping he'd give us more. California Chrome came from the clouds, and it is miraculous that he accomplished what he did. His story is about his winning the Kentucky Derby. It is not about his losing the Triple

Crown. I believe Art Sherman understands this.

I hope I remember this lesson for as long as I continue to follow horse racing.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

WHATTHEHAY — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:16:31 GMT

lets keep this simple, Keep the point system the way it is, only change for now lets say, the top 50 point getters become eligible for any of the 3 triple crown races, that way zero point getters don't get in the race

you must run to earn way into the crown.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Arts and Letters — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:53:05 GMT

I forgot to include Rachel Alexandra and Bernardini.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Confetti — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:28:27 GMT

I do agree with one of the author's observations:

"But like the connections for Funny Cide and Smarty Jones, they are likely a one-hit wonder and will soon be forgotten." I'm confident this has not yet occured to Steve Coburn.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Arts and Letters — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:05:56 GMT

Let's say a rule had always been in place where horses had to run in all three triple crown races.

This would have eliminated:

Man O'War

Conquistador Cielo

AP Indy

Rags to Riches

And probably quite a few others if one researches further back.

This would ensure that the Triple Crown winner would be "not necessarily the best three year old of the year".

Say a horse wins that kind of triple crown, but there's another, much better 3 year old that year, who couldn't start in the Derby for whatever reason, but wins everything else. That would absolutely ensure the Triple Crown's insignificance.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Lmaris — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:35:59 GMT

What a load of drivel. Changing the format of the Triple Crown by lengthening the time between races tarnishes it irreparably. End it now, and start the snowflake challenge, admitting today's North American Thoroughbreds are incapable of running classic distances without months between races. In Australia, trainers frequently use 10f races a week or two before as preparation for the 2-mile Melbourne Cup. This is even done by horses with mostly USA bred parents. Maybe instead of changing the format which has produced 11 champions, we return the sport to the "no race-day medication" of 40 years ago, when 3 horses managed to win.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

JON R — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:26:19 GMT

I believe the word "rigged" is too strong and suggests illegality or something underhanded is at play. Maybe "structured" would be a better term. Fact remains, however, that those three races are not stages in one competition, they are separate entities. Being in one race has nothing to do with being in one or both of the others. I would have hated to have A.P. Indy denied a chance at the Belmont because he missed the Derby...bruised foot the morning of the race...and then the Preakness while waiting for his injury to heal. He, like Tonalist, won the Peter Pan and then the Belmont. Why should he or any other horse be penalized? If one wants to shoot for the Belmont and not the other two, it's their prerogative. You mention that Chrome had to race two weeks before the Derby, something his connections didn't want to have to do. Well, so did horses who won the Triple Crown in the 70s. The races then (Wood Memorial) were two weeks before the Derby. Yes, Chrome faced fresh horses, but.... If it became a competition of the same horses facing each other three separate times, with no new entrants, it would be pretty boring and nobody would care. How meaningful would it be if one horse beat the exact same field of, say, 13 other horses three times in a row? (Does your being from California have anything to do with your opinion here? :-) )

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Rock man — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:43:38 GMT

CC gave all of us horse racing fans something special and it just makes me feel like we did not appreciate what he did for us all the memories we will have for the rest of our lives

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Rock man — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:39:28 GMT

Victor Espinoza needs to admit he was at fault for the way he rode CC for not having faith in CC for questioning the distance

CC did everything you asked him have faith

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Rock man — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:36:28 GMT

Victor Espinoza should spend some time riding in Belmont park

The Belmont track is so different to other tracks in the world

The final long stretch in going 1 1/2 mile I would never take my horse outside to add to the distance CC has given you what you asked every time

I would not question CC if I were you

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

tallulah13 — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:41:09 GMT

As long as they use a point system to qualify for the Derby, they should do the same for the rest of the series. Coburn could have said it better, but he spoke from the heart. I agree with most of what he said.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Bobby j — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:21:16 GMT

On the day when Secretariat won the Belmont you could have entered a hundred fresh horses in that race and the results still would have been the same.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

Zinn — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 01:58:54 GMT

I wasn't a big fan of Coburn's rant but as you point out he was headed in the right direction with some of his thoughts. The big difference is the Triple Crown races attract a lot more horses than a few decades ago. Nowadays more connections want their 15 minutes of fame by running in big three. In 1973, Secretariat met 12, 6 and 5 horses in the Derby, Preakness and Belmont. This spring, California Chrome met 18, 9 and 10 horses. In another decade we will be seeing 20,20 and 20 horse fields in all three races. To win the Triple Crown, today, a horse must run the table against twice as many horses as Secretariat in a short 5 week span. And most of the Preakness and Belmont horses either skipped the Derby, the Preakness or both.. It will take a phenomenal horse to run the table under current modern circumstances. Racing experienced an incredible and instant growth in fan base with the emergence of California Chrome. All corners of mainstream media both local and national covered "Chromania". The "nasal strip" controversy was a national story. When was the last time that happened? Swaps/Nashua match race? It would have only grown bigger had he won the Belmont. Racing industry leaders should take heed, in a big way, to what just occurred. A Triple Crown Champion or two or three could generate the excitement needed to re-grow a fan base. Spread the three races out so that the winner of the Derby and Preakness is not at such a huge disadvantage running against significantly larger fields of new and or fresh horses. The move would do nothing to diminish tradition but would allow for a more fair opportunity at running the table against a bunch of new and fresh horses entering the series..

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

CD_PHOTO — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:33:44 GMT

You seem to fall in on the side of a lot of people today that think that we as a society should subsidize mediocrity at every turn. Chrome is not a mediocre horse, far from it, but the fact is he set no speed records in any of his races. Unfortunately those other horses didn't realize how good Chrome is nor do they care when they literally stole the race right under his modified nose. Coburn knew going in what the rules were so he has no legitimate reason to cry, but what you speak to is a broader question. "When other sports face changing times, they adapt" Indeed they do from first grade Tee Ball where everyone who shows up gets a trophy to major league sports where performance enhancing drugs take the place of ability and determination. There will be another triple crown winner when breeders and trainers get better.

Chrome is a great horse, but he's not Northern Dancer, and will probably never produce a horse as good as he is nor will he leave behind a production record like Northern Dancer, who was not a triple crown winner either. I have never owned a horse nor would I ever want to but I do admire people and animals that win. In most instance animals in competition win in spite of what trainers and owners do not because of them. There's more to this story than meets the eye but I'd sooner watch water boil than venture out into the treacherous world of trying to write about race horses and that very nasty subject of "tradition".

Now you take care behind that cloak of journalism and I'll go feed my chickens. CD

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

arlingtonfan — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:35:00 GMT

Thank you, Mr. Shinar! Yes, yes, yes, I totally agree! For heaven's sake, they don't run the Derby Trial on the Wednesday before the Derby anymore, do they? If they did, no one would enter! It's time for a change. "That's the way it's always been done" is not a good enough argument for maintaining the status quo.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

broken crown — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:00:52 GMT

How about a simple solution that doesn't dramatically change the Triple Crown or decrease field size and at the same time rewards true sportsmanship and makes the races fairer to those who compete?

Change the weights of the Triple Crown races.

All horses should continue to carry equal weight in the Derby (126).

In the Preakness, give Derby starters a 5 pound weight allowanace (121) from the new shooters (126).

In the Belmont, Give horses that ran in the first two legs a 10 pound weight allowance (116) from the new shooters (126) and 7 pounds from horses competing in only one of the two prior Triple Crown races (123).

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

grayride — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:11:14 GMT

As a former owner/trainer/breeder, with a bit more research, I would not change the spacing of the three races, but might offer one suggestion for the triple crown series.....and I realize it would "technically" change these races to "handicap" BUT, when horses compete in either the Derby or Preakness, or both prior to going on to the Belmont, how about a weight allowance of 3 pounds for the Derby and 3 pounds for the Preakness/6 pounds for both......so the so-called "fresh" horse would then carry 126 and a CA Chrome would carry 120!!!

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

BellaGirl — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:27:27 GMT

"... times have changed and horses don't run every two weeks any longer."

Why? Because the durable, hard-knocking Thoroughbred of days gone by no longer exists. Should the Triple Crown rules be blamed and criticized, or is it really about the overall state of the modern Thoroughbred breed?

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

barryaksarben — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:23:43 GMT

I have loved horseracing from when I was a little kid as my dad and I bonded over him teaching me to read the form but like its been said over and over the sport is dying and it is because it is now geared to breeding not racing. I love the breeding side but novices to the sport do not and so stay away in droves. The facilities need to be improved and the little guy , weather a 2 dollar bettor or a first ime owner, encouraged not disparaged. The TV contracts get more and more absurd and if I have to watch another celeb interview over information about the sport I will puke. Try to get the newbies interested in the history and the great horse (besides just Secretariat)The triple crown is no longer relavent - this from a guy who has every book on the subject. They refuse to change it but will drop all mention of sire and dam over hats that women have on. ANd no more commentators who dont know one end of the horse from another.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

kincsem — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:21:50 GMT

First of all, we KNOW the time between the races has changed over the years. For instance: ".... Sir Barton's four wins were accomplished in a space of just 32 days.... (the 4th win being the Withers).

Secondly, Secretariat had time off from November to March. Seattle Slew did not run from October until March. Same for Affirmed. With the current point system, it might be doubtful that Street Sense, with a win in the Tampa Bay Derby (does that race even count anymore?) and a second in the Blue Grass may have even been in the starting gate on the first Saturday in May. Carl Nafzger would have been dictated by the racing schedule set forth by a posse of suits who stay in the air conditioned offices at Churchill Downs.

The problem is not fresh horses in the Belmont. The problem is the haughty attitude in Louisville that prevents REAL horsemen from being able to train three year olds in the way that is best for the horse.

Yes, Houston, we have a problem. Might as well face it. Write to CD and tell them to stop the insanity.

re: Whoa Nellie, Maybe Coburn's Right

chucky — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:05:38 GMT

It's amazing how there are so many disagreement about the TC races. From points to earnings to schedule. Somehow what ills the industry is ignored.

YOU JUST NEED TO START BREEDING GREAT THROUGHBREDS.

Thoroughbreds that keep racing past their 3 year old into their 4th and hopefully 5th season so that they are in the mainstream headlines. Nobody knows milers like Uncle Mo or Shanghai Bobby. How many times have they been printed on mainstream headlines. Now check out Zenyatta.

It might be too late since most if not all the prestigious races has gone off mainstream headline except for the KD and the Belmont is the winner of KD wins the Preakness.

But this industry needs to go back to basic.

THIS IS ABOUT SHOWCASING GREAT THOROUGHBREDS....

not just horses and sprinters and milers too me regardless of how good they are are NOT thoroughbreds.