Photo

Belmont 2014


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#21 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:05 PM

Whoa, Colburn's pissed...


@DJ_McCann

#22 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:05 PM

Hoping for another 40 years or so. Less hopeful on the TC. Makes it seem all the more remarkable that there were 3 of them in the 70s.

I think we'll see one by then. We're not going 75 years without a TC winner.


@levineps

#23 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:06 PM

Things were different back then. This owner is bitter, but his point isn't wrong.

That said, when a horse actually does it, and I do think it'll eventually happen, it's really going to be a special moment. Likely, a special horse.

#24 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,562 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:10 PM

Whoa, Colburn's pissed...



What did he say?

#25 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:17 PM

Now we can go back to not caring about horse racing for another 10 months.


Or for eternity.
  • SportsGuy likes this

#26 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 22,254 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:18 PM

What was he saying about cowards?

#27 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:19 PM

What did he say?

 

He was angry at the practice of owners holding horses back from the Derby and Preakness and running them in the Belmont to try and take down a possible Triple-Crown horse. He said that only the horses that run in the Derby should be eligible to run in the other two.

 

A lot of it was obviously emotion.


@DJ_McCann

#28 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:19 PM

What was he saying about cowards?

 

Owners keeping their horses out of the first two races only to run them in the Belmont to prevent a Triple Crown.


  • Chris B likes this
@DJ_McCann

#29 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 22,254 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:20 PM

I kind of agree with him.

#30 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:22 PM

Or for eternity.

How does it compare to pre-New Years bowl games?


@levineps

#31 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:24 PM

Or for eternity.

How does it compare to pre-New Years bowl games?

The plus is it's super short if you just watch the one race. The negatives include the animal cruelty aspect and that it's not even a sport IMO.

#32 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 19,550 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:28 PM

He was angry at the practice of owners holding horses back from the Derby and Preakness and running them in the Belmont to try and take down a possible Triple-Crown horse. He said that only the horses that run in the Derby should be eligible to run in the other two.

 

A lot of it was obviously emotion.

 

Bad form on his part to rant about it right after the race, but he is right (about how owners/trainers hold horses out of one or both of the first 2 legs). That's how racing has changed, and that's why we may never see another Triple Crown winner again. That said, don't agree with his statement about forcing horses to run the races.


  • Oriole85 likes this

#33 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:29 PM

The plus is it's super short if you just watch the one race. The negatives include the animal cruelty aspect and that it's not even a sport IMO.

I didn't realize you were going there with this one. I'm not going to debate the merits here of that. I do think it's a sport though.


@levineps

#34 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:30 PM

Bad form on his part to rant about it right after the race, but he is right (about how owners/trainers hold horses out of one or both of the first 2 legs). That's how racing has changed, and that's why we may never see another Triple Crown winner again. That said, don't agree with his statement about forcing horses to run the races.

Pretty much agree with this. If you want to prevent this, change the rules (must enter atleast one of the first two races).


@levineps

#35 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 06:47 PM

BTW....I think I agree with the analyst who said the jockey messed up.

Don't know about moving him outside or reining him back and allowing such a slow pace. Sometimes you have to let the horse do his thing.

#36 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 07 June 2014 - 08:38 PM

He was angry at the practice of owners holding horses back from the Derby and Preakness and running them in the Belmont to try and take down a possible Triple-Crown horse. He said that only the horses that run in the Derby should be eligible to run in the other two.
 
A lot of it was obviously emotion.


KVV was on our show the other night and said the same thing.

I agree with them.

#37 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 07 June 2014 - 08:44 PM

Is the problem with horses not running either race, or just skipping the Preakness? I know the latter issue has come up before because of the fast turnaround.

 

I wonder if it would be better to move both the Preakness and Belmont Stakes back a week, to give a full three weeks in between each race?


@DJ_McCann

#38 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 09:00 PM

They could run a race every two months.


I can understand why after you lose the Derby you chose not to run the Preakness with the plans of running the Belmont.

Let's remember, these are grade 1 races with big time prize money and a triple crown winner is going to get even more in the end when it comes to breeding rights. We're talking big money investments with big money stakes involved depending on how the race horse performs.


Have the Derby in early May. Preakness is July and Belmont in September.

The race horcing game has changed. You need to evolve to make it fair. It's still 3 grade one races during the 3 yr old season.



Level the playing field and make it fair for the Derby winner.

#39 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 07 June 2014 - 09:09 PM

They could run a race every two months.


I can understand why after you lose the Derby you chose not to run the Preakness with the plans of running the Belmont.

Let's remember, these are grade 1 races with big time prize money and a triple crown winner is going to get even more in the end when it comes to breeding rights. We're talking big money investments with big money stakes involved depending on how the race horse performs.


Have the Derby in early May. Preakness is July and Belmont in September.

The race horcing game has changed. You need to evolve to make it fair. It's still 3 grade one races during the 3 yr old season.



Level the playing field and make it fair for the Derby winner.

 

But then you run the risk of extending the races out so far that people stop caring. There are a lot of short memories in the sporting public, and putting three months in between would kill any publicity and media momentum built up by a Triple-Crown try.


@DJ_McCann

#40 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 07 June 2014 - 09:16 PM


But then you run the risk of extending the races out so far that people stop caring. There are a lot of short memories in the sporting public, and putting three months in between would kill any publicity and media momentum built up nby a Triple-Crown try.

Well most of the time that interest is gone after the Preakness anyway. That can't be a good reason why you don't do it.

And if a horse wins the first two, the interest will still be there for the Belmont. The race where people could forget or lose some interest would be the Preakness.


It used to be that a horse had to do it all in 5 weeks. That was part of the allure. And a lot of horses ran all 3 races. But now, with rarely any horse running all three except for a horse going for the TC doing it in 5 weeks shouldn't have to be part of the deal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=