Belmont Stakes 2014 this Saturday

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy

Steve Coburn, sore loser or just venting?

definitely came across as sour grapes, sorry for Chrome but not Coburn.

It's suppose to be hard, nobody guaranteed fair. In his world, the number of horses that might load up by the time the Belmont came around could be down to 2 or 3.

[Driller1]

If California Chrome were my horse he would have never raced a day after the derby. (always take them home a winner)

The game now is stud fees and how much his get will sell for.

Every horse that beat him will make money off of his talent now......they will all be "a horse that defeated California Chrome".

Somewhere on CD I posted this thought just before second race.....I got a DM telling me how wrong I was....opinions vary.

[MrWillys]

Winning time was 2:28.52, so not even close to Secretariats 2:24

[Teddy52]

Everyone talks about how.......it used to be.( all horses had to run all three)

again, if you claim that to be true, what year did it change ?

[MrWillys]

Originally Posted by Teddy52

Everyone talks about how.......it used to be.( all horses had to run all three)

again, if you claim that to be true, what year did it change ?

I don't have a clue! As someone else pointed out it was changed, because no one wanted to run by the time they got to the Belmont. California Chrome didn't get the job done, and the track time proves it.

[theoldnorthstate]

Originally Posted by MrWillys

Winning time was 2:28.52, so not even close to Secretariats 2:24

thanks, that is where I was going on this.

kind of takes away the owner's argument of CC being unfairly outpaced by fresh talent. The fresh talent didn't even come close to the course record.

Although, the owner does have a point that this rule change could very likely mean the end of triple crown winners.

still Secretariat would have won at 2:24

[Teddy52]

When the last time a horse ever won the Triple Crown, were all horses in the Belmont required to have run the Preakness and Kentucky Derby , also ?

If not, the owner has no argument.

[John13]

Originally Posted by MrWillys

I don't have a clue! As someone else pointed out it was changed, because no one wanted to run by the time they got to the Belmont. California Chrome didn't get the job done, and the track time proves it.

I don't remember any change. I've been following the series for 30 years and I can't recall that they had to run at both Kentucky and Baltimore to run in the Belmont.

Sour grapes for the owner who is looking very bad and unprofessional in my eyes. California Chrome didn't have it, case closed. I'm glad he lost, especially now. Frankly he's not THAT good. His easy trips and sub-champion times are worth looking at. He's a good horse, but not great one. Not worthy of winning the Triple Crown.

[ocnjgirl]

Did anyone catch his wife trying to shush him toward the end of his rant? I couldn't tell what she said first, but he turned to her and said "I don't care!" and I could see her mouth "Well I do" and then give him a frosty look. I can relate, I was her with my ex many times.

He was disappointed and upset, and he blew off steam. Who hasn't ever done that?

[John13]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

Did anyone catch his wife trying to get him to hush toward the end of his rant? I couldn't tell what she said first, but he turned to her and said "I don't care!" and I could see her mouth "Well I do" and then give him a frosty look. I can relate, I was her with my ex many times.

I missed that but I was also talking to a friend at the same time. I heard enough of it to say he made an ass of himself for all to see.