triple crown

go chrome![font=verdana]
*[/font]

Has the race been run? Who won?

[quote=“Pappadave, post:2, topic:43713”]
Has the race been run? Who won?
[/quote] as you probably know by now, there was no triple crown winner this year yet again. California Chrome seemed a little tired even going into the gate, and in the race when it came time for him to make that final burst of speed that he is famous for, he made a valiant effort but came up a little short. he tied for fourth, altho he actually came in much closer to the winner than that sounds. I think the longer Belmont track was a challenge for a horse that was smaller than most of his competitors, plus he was tired.

as you probably also know by now, his owner then created a controversy by saying that only horses that have also raced in the derby and the Preakness should be allowed to run in the Belmont. he has a point–the horse that won had run in neither of the previous races and was as fresh as a daisy. but that’s the way it’s always been, and that’s exactly what makes winning the triple crown so difficult. it ain’t gonna change. unfortunately he went so far as to say that running in the Belmont only was a “coward’s way out” which went over like a lead balloon in the genteel (on the surface!) world of racing. it was the kind of thing he should have saved to say to his best buddies over a beer later, not in front of an audience of millions.

California chrome is still a plucky and, yes, very fast little horse and will continue to make lots of money for his owners as a stud for hire!

[quote=“patriciareed, post:3, topic:43713”]
as you probably know by now, there was no triple crown winner this year yet again. California Chrome seemed a little tired even going into the gate, and in the race when it came time for him to make that final burst of speed that he is famous for, he made a valiant effort but came up a little short. he tied for fourth, altho he actually came in much closer to the winner than that sounds. I think the longer Belmont track was a challenge for a horse that was smaller than most of his competitors, plus he was tired.
as you probably also know by now, his owner then created a controversy by saying that only horses that have also raced in the derby and the Preakness should be allowed to run in the Belmont. he has a point–the horse that won had run in neither of the previous races and was as fresh as a daisy. but that’s the way it’s always been, and that’s exactly what makes winning the triple crown so difficult. it ain’t gonna change. unfortunately he went so far as to say that running in the Belmont only was a “coward’s way out” which went over like a lead balloon in the genteel (on the surface!) world of racing. it was the kind of thing he should have saved to say to his best buddies over a beer later, not in front of an audience of millions.

California chrome is still a plucky and, yes, very fast little horse and will continue to make lots of money for his owners as a stud for hire!
[/quote]I have been a racing fan since Secretariat. I watched Seattle Slew, and Affirmed win the coveted Triple Crown.
The Belmont Stakes is the “graveyard” of speed horses. THAT is what made Secretariat’s win, so awesome. His margin of victory has never been approached. Everyone thought, since the seven failures between Citation and Secretariat ended at the Belmont, Secretariat would fail at Belmont. He was thought to be a “speed” horse. He proved that he ran faster, the longer he ran.
This owner is a whiner, big time. His horse had three weeks to recover. Realistically, Chrome didn’t beat any triple crowner’s time, at the Derby, or the Preakness. He was No more tired than any horse to run for the TC. Secretariat won in record time, at each event.
Now, I applaud Chrome’s performance at the Derby and the Preakness. But, he was no TC winner.

no, chrome didnt beat any previous triple crowner’s time in the derby or preakness. but looking at this year’s field… he did beat every other horse that had raced in all three races (except Wicked Strong, with whom he tied). so most likely had the horses who ultimately finished in the money not been more rested (i still believe that to be a factor), the outcome would have been a photo finish between chrome and strong or a win for chrome. so i see where the owner is coming from. but horse racing is not going to make such a major change after all these years. and thus we may not see another triple crown winner in our lifetimes. like you, i did see the ones in the 70s and would have liked to have seen one this year. do you think there will ever, ever be another secretariat?

[quote=“patriciareed, post:5, topic:43713”]
no, chrome didnt beat any previous triple crowner’s time in the derby or preakness. but looking at this year’s field… he did beat every other horse that had raced in all three races (except Wicked Strong, with whom he tied). so most likely had the horses who ultimately finished in the money not been more rested (i still believe that to be a factor), the outcome would have been a photo finish between chrome and strong or a win for chrome. so i see where the owner is coming from. but horse racing is not going to make such a major change after all these years. and thus we may not see another triple crown winner in our lifetimes. like you, i did see the ones in the 70s and would have liked to have seen one this year. do you think there will ever, ever be another secretariat?
[/quote]Nope. Secretariat was the Greatest Race Horse that ever lived. Bar none.
Oh, I believe that I see where he is coming from, too. He’s whining. He lost. He feels the race was stacked against him, but if Chrome had won, he’d NEVER say that things needed to be changed.
You see, all horses are not created equal. Some horses sprint, and some are distance runners. Are you aware that Man O War didn’t run in the Derby? Not all horses qualify for the Derby. If you had a horse, like Tonalist, who ran distance better than sprint, would you waste money, time and possible injure your meal ticket to run a race he’s not suited to run? Of course not. This is not triathalon. These are not three legs of the same race. They are three distinct ans separate races. The Derby is 1 1/4 miles. The Preakness is 1 3/16 miles. The Belmont is 1 1/2 miles. Tonalist would not do well in either of the first two, but is ideally suited for the Belmont. So, the owner of Chrome thinks all three or none. Why? Because HIS ran all three.
Secretariat set world records that still stand. After the Preakness, he WAS NEVER RESTED. They worked him. Sham, was rested. Secretariat beat him by 31 lengths. Sham’s owner predicted Sham to win, based on the quickness he displayed ar the Derby and Preakness. It was thought that since he set world records in the sprints, he’d fail at the Belmont. So, they rested Sham, and figured Secretariat would falter due to fatigue.
Instead, Secretariat blistered the course. No, he was not drugged. He DID NOT NEED THE REST PEOPLE THINK A HORSE NEEDS.
C’mon folks. How long does an athlete need to recover? Three weeks is plenty long. The fact is, that this “thoroughbred” Chrome, isn’t enough to go down in history as a legitimate TC horse. Yes, I enjoyed watching a “bargain” horse hand the elite a great big dung burger to eat, but it is what it is. He couldn’t handle the length of the Belmont. Most horses fail to win the TC, by losing the Belmont

[quote=“Tiny1, post:6, topic:43713”]
Nope. Secretariat was the Greatest Race Horse that ever lived. Bar none.
Oh, I believe that I see where he is coming from, too. He’s whining. He lost. He feels the race was stacked against him, but if Chrome had won, he’d NEVER say that things needed to be changed.
You see, all horses are not created equal. Some horses sprint, and some are distance runners. Are you aware that Man O War didn’t run in the Derby? Not all horses qualify for the Derby. If you had a horse, like Tonalist, who ran distance better than sprint, would you waste money, time and possible injure your meal ticket to run a race he’s not suited to run? Of course not. This is not triathalon. These are not three legs of the same race. They are three distinct ans separate races. The Derby is 1 1/4 miles. The Preakness is 1 3/16 miles. The Belmont is 1 1/2 miles. Tonalist would not do well in either of the first two, but is ideally suited for the Belmont. So, the owner of Chrome thinks all three or none. Why? Because HIS ran all three.
Secretariat set world records that still stand. After the Preakness, he WAS NEVER RESTED. They worked him. Sham, was rested. Secretariat beat him by 31 lengths. Sham’s owner predicted Sham to win, based on the quickness he displayed ar the Derby and Preakness. It was thought that since he set world records in the sprints, he’d fail at the Belmont. So, they rested Sham, and figured Secretariat would falter due to fatigue.
Instead, Secretariat blistered the course. No, he was not drugged. He DID NOT NEED THE REST PEOPLE THINK A HORSE NEEDS.
C’mon folks. How long does an athlete need to recover? Three weeks is plenty long. The fact is, that this “thoroughbred” Chrome, isn’t enough to go down in history as a legitimate TC horse. Yes, I enjoyed watching a “bargain” horse hand the elite a great big dung burger to eat, but it is what it is. He couldn’t handle the length of the Belmont. Most horses fail to win the TC, by losing the Belmont
[/quote] Granted, other horses obviously have managed to win all three (if they hadn’t there would be no such thing as the triple crown), secretariat being the one who did it most spectacularly. but so very few horses can do it. I think rest is a factor. you think most horses just cant do both sprints and distances, they are one or the other (like most human runners for that matter) and you may be right.

25 years passed between Citation, and Secretariat. During that time, seven horses won both Derby and Preakness. ALL 7 failed at the Belmont.
So, yes, it is my contention that REST has little to do with who wins the Belmont. Common Sense.
Sham finished right behind Secretariat at the Derby AND the Preakness. Had Secretariat not been there, Sham was a shoe in for the TC. He finished second, in each race, but at the Belmont, Secretariat scorched his hind quarters. Sham’s owners rested him. Secretariat’s trainer worked him. Rest did not help a legitimate TC horse, and would not be a factor in any Belmont. The Belmont is the Longest race these horses ever run.
Use your common sense. If you had a multi million dollar horse, (Secretariat’s owner turned down 8 million), would you risk killing that horse, by working him, or would you let him rest? Since Secretariat’s owner saw fit to work him right up to the “gate”, I’d say the chance of him running himself to death, was not at issue. Sham’s owner figured he could outsmart the “housewife” owner so he rested Sham. See where I am going?
Sham was rested. Secretariat was not. If not being rested was that critical, Sham should have waxed Secretariat’s rear end. After all, Sham finished right behind Big Red both short races. But couldn’t even run with Red, at the Belmont. Why? Because Secretariat had distance, in his blood. The longer he ran, the faster he ran. This bit about rested horses, is nothing but sour grapes.

[quote=“Tiny1, post:8, topic:43713”]
25 years passed between Citation, and Secretariat. During that time, seven horses won both Derby and Preakness. ALL 7 failed at the Belmont.
So, yes, it is my contention that REST has little to do with who wins the Belmont. Common Sense.
Sham finished right behind Secretariat at the Derby AND the Preakness. Had Secretariat not been there, Sham was a shoe in for the TC. He finished second, in each race, but at the Belmont, Secretariat scorched his hind quarters. Sham’s owners rested him. Secretariat’s trainer worked him. Rest did not help a legitimate TC horse, and would not be a factor in any Belmont. The Belmont is the Longest race these horses ever run.
Use your common sense. If you had a multi million dollar horse, (Secretariat’s owner turned down 8 million), would you risk killing that horse, by working him, or would you let him rest? Since Secretariat’s owner saw fit to work him right up to the “gate”, I’d say the chance of him running himself to death, was not at issue. Sham’s owner figured he could outsmart the “housewife” owner so he rested Sham. See where I am going?
Sham was rested. Secretariat was not. If not being rested was that critical, Sham should have waxed Secretariat’s rear end. After all, Sham finished right behind Big Red both short races. But couldn’t even run with Red, at the Belmont. Why? Because Secretariat had distance, in his blood. The longer he ran, the faster he ran. This bit about rested horses, is nothing but sour grapes.
[/quote] i’m weakening, but… secretariat was such an extraordinary horse that I don’t know if we can use him to draw conclusions about other horses. he broke the mold!

[quote=“patriciareed, post:9, topic:43713”]
i’m weakening, but… secretariat was such an extraordinary horse that I don’t know if we can use him to draw conclusions about other horses. he broke the mold!
[/quote]But, one cannot discount Sham. This is my point. Sham was an AWESOME race horse. The ONLY horse to stay withing striking distance. If there was never a Secretariat, barring injury, Sham was a clear TC horse. He and Secretariat had both run all three races.
HIS owner never played sour grapes. He accepted the fact that his horse, was second best.
But, let’s look at Affirmed. Affirmed led the slowest first half, in Belmont history. Alydar and Affirmed ran the FASTEST last mile, in history. BOTH were Derby and Preakness horses, and therefore, not rested. Yet, the distance, ruled out any opposition to the two.
I totally understand your dilemma, and agree that Secretariat was Uncommon. But this difference between his win at Belmont and the other TC races, solidifies my position, that, as awesome as Sham was, he could not hold up under the distance of the Belmont.
Besides, none of that really matters. The truth of the situation is that the Triple Crown is not a triathalon. It is three separate races. One of those races, the Belmont Stakes, is friendlier to distance horses, and thus the “Graveyard of Speed Horses”. Tonalist was a distance horse, running in the only TC race he was suited for. Chrome’s owner seems to value the TC as a 3 in 1 event. It is not. The TC is like the Grand Slam in golf. IF you are good enough to win all 4 mjaor golf tournaments, you win the Slam. But can you imagine if they said, "Tiger Woods is ineligible for the PGA Championship, since he was not at the Masters?
To be a TC champion, you must OVERCOME the odds, and win all three races, taking on ALL comers. That is what makes it such a gigantic feat.

Am I wrong, but didn’t film after the race show a bloody injury to one hoof of California Chrome? I don’t know from horses, but when I was running track and had a severe outbreak of athlete’s foot bad enough to bleed, I was CONSIDERABLY slowed down.

[quote=“Tiny1, post:10, topic:43713”]
But, one cannot discount Sham. This is my point. Sham was an AWESOME race horse. The ONLY horse to stay withing striking distance. If there was never a Secretariat, barring injury, Sham was a clear TC horse. He and Secretariat had both run all three races.
HIS owner never played sour grapes. He accepted the fact that his horse, was second best.
But, let’s look at Affirmed. Affirmed led the slowest first half, in Belmont history. Alydar and Affirmed ran the FASTEST last mile, in history. BOTH were Derby and Preakness horses, and therefore, not rested. Yet, the distance, ruled out any opposition to the two.
I totally understand your dilemma, and agree that Secretariat was Uncommon. But this difference between his win at Belmont and the other TC races, solidifies my position, that, as awesome as Sham was, he could not hold up under the distance of the Belmont.
Besides, none of that really matters. The truth of the situation is that the Triple Crown is not a triathalon. It is three separate races. One of those races, the Belmont Stakes, is friendlier to distance horses, and thus the “Graveyard of Speed Horses”. Tonalist was a distance horse, running in the only TC race he was suited for. Chrome’s owner seems to value the TC as a 3 in 1 event. It is not. The TC is like the Grand Slam in golf. IF you are good enough to win all 4 mjaor golf tournaments, you win the Slam. But can you imagine if they said, "Tiger Woods is ineligible for the PGA Championship, since he was not at the Masters?
To be a TC champion, you must OVERCOME the odds, and win all three races, taking on ALL comers. That is what makes it such a gigantic feat.
[/quote] you’re a hard man to argue with. I concede defeat!

[quote=“patriciareed, post:12, topic:43713”]
you’re a hard man to argue with. I concede defeat!
[/quote]No defeat. No winner. I just love horse racing, and do not wish to see it made easier to satisfy a whining owner. I respect your opinions and enjoyed talking about it with someone who obviously cares a bit. Enjoy your day.

[quote=“Pappadave, post:11, topic:43713”]
Am I wrong, but didn’t film after the race show a bloody injury to one hoof of California Chrome? I don’t know from horses, but when I was running track and had a severe outbreak of athlete’s foot bad enough to bleed, I was CONSIDERABLY slowed down.
[/quote]I heard he may have gotten hurt coming out of the gate.
The injury is superficial, and not deep, but will take a few weeks to heal. While it MAY have had an effect, the owner is still whining that the Triple Crown should be a three prong event. What a bad loser and what a BABY.

[quote=“Tiny1, post:14, topic:43713”]
I heard he may have gotten hurt coming out of the gate.
The injury is superficial, and not deep, but will take a few weeks to heal. While it MAY have had an effect, the owner is still whining that the Triple Crown should be a three prong event. What a bad loser and what a BABY.
[/quote] After Eight Belles’ death at the 2008 Derby, I actually was hospitalized with a mild heart attack and was not able to watch horse racing for a few years after that. but I wasn’t able to stay away forever after a lifetime of watching. I do worry that we are breeding bigger and bigger horses on long, slender spindly legs and we are going to reach some natural limit to that but more horses may die before we realize we have reached it. I also don’t think fillies should race colts. and I think the industry needs to be very vigilant about the use of stimulants. that said, I still enjoy watching and am convinced that a horse knows when it has won. btw have you read Seabiscuit or seen the film? Both very good.

when I was a child we had a horse racing board game. haven’t seen one of those in many a year.

Two things about horse racing for me. And neither has to do with the evaluation of the technical aspects of the sport, as PR and Tiny have discussed and are far superior to any understanding of the game I have. No . . . my observation is simply about being “awestruck”, and the other experience I’m about to recount is just about being buffoonish.

A little background first. I love to be at the track. I used to go to Santa Anita and Hollywood Park as often as I could . . . though that was back in the 80’s, so I don’t even know if those places are still there in southern California.

I remember we used to sit on the grass of the infield at Santa Anita before the races (or was that somewhere else at the park? . . . can’t remember), and enjoy some picnic food. Anyway, just being anywhere at the track was fun.

OK . . . those two things.

  1. Just looking at those animals close up, as they came out onto the staging area with jockeys mounted, was breathtaking and an experience I’ll never forget. The well defined muscles, and then the sight of those muscles rippling as they ran around the track was awesome and actually is indescribable. Just watching on a TV doesn’t really give you the flavor of how majestic these animals are. My best times at the track were just looking at the horse flesh up close.

  2. After a race, most people tear their loosing tickets up, throw them in the air, and it looks like snow or a ticker tape parade in the stands right then.

I was at Hollywood Park one time, and they were not only showing the Derby in the lounge TV’s, but you could bet on the Derby right there at the Hollywood Park ticket windows.

So I made a bet on the Hollywood Park race about to start, and also a bet on the Derby. When the race at Hollywood Park was over and I had lost miserably (which was common for me), I tore up my ticket and threw it in the air like all the rest of the losers.

Then I went up to the lounge and saw the win, place, and show for the Derby. Amazingly, I had either a place or a show (can’t remember which). So I pulled out the tickets, looked at them, and saw that they were for . . . drum roll . . . THE HOLLYWOOD PARK RACE.

I HAD MISTAKENLY TORN UP AND THROWN THE DERBY TICKETS. The fragments of those tickets were mixed in with all the fragments of the other tickets on the floor of the stadium and thus could not be retrieved anyway. Gone forever. I had ripped up and thrown away my 15 minutes of fame and a good chunk of cash.


Still remember looking up close at the horse flesh at the track, but the memory of my buffoonish behavior with the Derby tickets will haunt me forever.

I once looked at the lottery results and realized that I hadn’t gotten the Powerball right, so put my ticket in the garbage, after which my wife emptied the used coffee filter and grounds. On closer examination, I realized I had gotten four of the numbers right and the ticket was worth $100 so I dug it out, wiped off the coffee grounds and redeemed it. The first Powerball winner in Oklahoma ($105 MILLION) bought the ticket on his way to Lake Eufaula fishing. He never found his ticket, though he had the slip that you run though the machine to PRINT it. I don’t think he got the money.

[QUOTE=BobJam;676674]

  1. Just looking at those animals close up, as they came out onto the staging area with jockeys mounted, was breathtaking and an experience I’ll never forget. The well defined muscles, and then the sight of those muscles rippling as they ran around the track was awesome and actually is indescribable. Just watching on a TV doesn’t really give you the flavor of how majestic these animals are. My best times at the track were just looking at the horse flesh up close.

do you think a horse knows when he has won?

I agree with you on the beauty of the horses. As a “horse nut” (but never a great rider) I never miss a chance to be around horses and each type has its own beauty. when I was a child our town for some weird reason had a polo team, and my dad patiently drove me to the home matches and some members of the team would let me walk their horses to keep them loosened up during down times. I was so proud. I’ve seen the Budweiser Clydes and and rubbed their noses and was surprised that such a bulky horse could still be so beautiful. I’ve had the privilege of watching the lippizaner stallions perform, they are magical. [ATTACH]2201[/ATTACH] finally this is a depiction of the amazing horsemanship of the plains indians. when horses became plentiful, the young braves thought they had died and gone to heaven.

I don’t care what a horse thinks as long as he or she wins.

[quote=“patriciareed, post:18, topic:43713”]
do you think a horse knows when he has won?
[/quote]I have absolutely NO IDEA, but I DO have an opinion and I’ll express it at the end of this.

Some of the Thoroughbreds at the track were high spirited and some were mellow, and all seemed to have their own distinct personality. The problem with attempting to evaluate their intelligence level and trying to determine if they even know what a “win” is, is that we tend to anthropomorphize animals. IOW, we give them human characteristics when they may not have any.

Compared to other horses, Thoroughbreds may be intelligent, though I don’t know what the “intelligence benchmark” for horses is.

However, I DID own a horse that was a combination Morgan and Appaloosa, and that thing, at least using a human intelligence benchmark, was one of the most stupid animals on the planet.

Owning a horse is like owning a boat. IOW, it’s a perpetual sink hole for money.

I won’t say that my own anecdotal experience with the things is enough for me to broad-brush and make a universal proclamation that horse ownership is a “bad” thing, but my own experience wasn’t favorable.

A friend knew someone that wanted to get rid of his horse, and was either going to give it away for free or send it to the dog food factory.

So when I heard about that, I thought, “Hey, I’ve always wanted a horse, I have enough room on my property (we lived in Hesperia, CA, at the time), and it would be good also to save the thing from slaughter.”

So off I went to get the horse. At first glance, it seemed like a handsome beast. A cross between a Morgan and an Appaloosa, with a mottled gray hide:

(Photo courtesy of Jack H. . . . and this isn’t the actual horse, but it looks PRETTY MUCH like him, except maybe he had a little more draft horse features.)

The guy loaded him up on his horse trailer, and drove it to my place . . . a considerable distance. But the guy was very cooperative . . . should have been my first tip that something was wrong.

So now I’m going to the local hardware store, buying all the wood and materials to build a corral, working up a sweat with the post-hole digger, and hammering and building away.

When I handled the horse, I noticed that he was extremely skittish, particularly when I went to touch him, but I wrote that off to things being new and unfamiliar for the beast, so I let it go (THAT should have been my second tip off.)

I got on him bareback (no bit or anything . . . pretty much “Indian style”) and rode him down to a nearby sandy dry river bed. When we got there he started to rear up and snort, I lost control, and he threw me. Fortunately, we were on the sandy dry river bed, so I landed on sand and the impact didn’t break any bones . . . just knocked the wind out of me.

I was a little annoyed, but remained calm because I didn’t want to upset him any more than he seemed to be already upset. As I looked at him closer, I realized he was still a stallion (should have noticed that right away when I went to pick him up, but I was so excited I only QUICKLY and CURSORILY examined the teeth and hooves . . . later to find out there was a problem with hooves), and I knew there were some mares housed nearby, so I was pretty sure he caught their scent and that was why he was so hyper.

So I walked him back to the house, thinking about the trip to the vet I needed to make (to have him gelded). Add THAT to the expense of the corral.

Then there was feeding him. Morgans are draft horses (workers pulling a load), and he had a substantial build and an appetite to go with it. I got some alfalfa cubes, but I was making a lot of trips to the feed store every few days.

I didn’t want him to founder, so I tried to be judicious with the feed.

When I picked his legs up, I noticed his hooves needed cleaning (another “tip off” I missed), but I figured that wouldn’t be a big deal. IT WAS.

As time went on, I began to realize this thing needed more and more attention. Under normal circumstances, you can’t just let days go by without attending to your horse, and this was becoming anything but “normal”.

On one of my trips taking him to the vet (add the expense of a horse trailer), the vet remarked, “I recognize this horse . . . the owner beat and abused him, and I treated him for that several times.”

Now it all began to fit. The skittishness every time I went to touch him, the poor condition of the hooves, and his general hyper disposition.

I eventually gave him away myself . . . to the vet, no less . . . and the remnants of the damage to my wallet reminded me of him for quite a while.

Others may have had favorable experiences, but based on my own experience, which I admit may not be typical, I’d recommend against owning a horse casually

On the plus side, they are beautiful animals. But that’s NOT what you see when you own a Morgan/Appaloosa that has been abused.


So, do Thoroughbreds know when they’ve won? IMO, I don’t think so in the sense that we humans think of “winning”. Do they want to be at the head of the pack? Some (alphas, I guess) maybe. That may be their idea of “winning”: “Good, I’m at the head of the pack now.”

But at the end of the day, we really don’t know.

Do I think they know when they’ve won? Well . . . they probably realize there’s some kind of big deal going on when they get a wreath of flowers around their neck along with photos being snapped and crowds around them, but IMO NO.

Likewise, I don’t think there’s any prescience there. IOW, they don’t know IF they’re going to win. Though the losers reading racing forms often say, “He’ll win this race . . . he looks like he knows he’s going to win.”

Yeah . . . right. You can often be guaranteed that this one will end up finishing last.