Belmont

[SCCat]

That's some sour grapes from the California Chrome owner.

[CalStateTempe]

what did he say? do?

I flipped back to soccer after the race.

[SCCat]

It will be talked about and reshown I'm sure.

He basically said those that don't run in the first two races and then come to run in the Belmont are cowards. And he didn't say it in a nice way; he very specifically called the winner a coward over and over.

It was a very bad look.

[CalStateTempe]

I kinda agree with that statement, but I didn't hear it so I'm sure the tone came off as you would expect from a group that calls themselves "DAP racing" Dumb-Ass Partners.

I don't fault him though. Thats his horse, he invested, its his passion. He suffered a loss..

I need to hear it to make an informed conclusion.

[JMarkJohns]

Fatigue and Wear/Tear are a very real part of the sport. It is a shame a horse who ran is penalized for running in these areas while horses who didn't run are helped.

The jockey ran a shitty race. That's why CC lost.

But you should have to at least race in either Derby or Preakness to race at Belmont.

[SCCat]

You definitely need to hear it.

But this is how these races have been run for...how long? My understanding is a super long time. And that's what makes it so tough to win and why there's only been a dozen or whatever winners and no winners since '78; it's really tough to do. That's the point of the thing and that's what the other winners had to overcome to be champions.

It just gave me the feeling of being super bad grapes and wanting the rules to be different for your horse.

[JMarkJohns]

I don't disagree there, but tradition isn't right if it's wrong.

[SCCat]

And that point could be made...without calling the winner of the Belmont a coward over and over again on national television while nearly frothing at the mouth.

[JMarkJohns]

I'm fine with it. Looked about as petty as hiding a horse from the first two legs so it could pose a fresher challenge in this race.

Truth is truth.

It wasn't a good look, but he didn't hide. He owned the opinion.

[SCCat]

I'm fine with it.

In a similar situation, you would've handled it basically like that?

[JMarkJohns]

No. But I'll not fault a working man who did everything right for not being a gentleman when the gentleman are doing wrong by the day because it's technically right.

[SCCat]

No. But I'll not fault a working man who did everything right for not being a gentleman when the gentleman are doing wrong by the day because it's technically right.

So you would've handled it differently?

So would basically everyone else.

Check the 3:45 mark to hear ESPN analyst view of Chome's owner's words.

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/triplec ... iple-crown

[JMarkJohns]

He called attention to a bullcrap aspect of the triple crown. He got people talking.

It was embarrassing, but no more so than great horses being preserved in a three-course race.

It's a shame it took this. I've always hated horses being held back to maximize.

I'd be good with a rule that to compete in any you have to compete in all.

I'd have congratulated the horse and jockey for running a fine race, then went ham on the rule.

[SCCat]

So you're cool with changing 100 years of history?

What would the new series be called?

[JMarkJohns]

The rule was stupid 100 years ago.

It's like only having to do the laps in your ideal stroke in the individual medley in swimming while others have to do all strokes, all laps.

I get it's an individual race, but it's really not. Most don't care about the individual races, only the collective.

Baseball has had to change its 100-year rules more than a few times.

So has golf.

[CalStateTempe]

I see nothing wrong in that interview. In fact after watching, I'm in more agreement then prior. Wouldn't have handled it in the exact same way, but he sounded like a man sad and angry that his beloved lost. Given the stakes, I'm fine with that.

What did the old lady tell him after the interview? They had a nice parting glare before the cut to the track view.

[CalStateTempe]

Yeah watched the ESPN clip.

The woman "analyst" appeared more animated and less professional than Coburn. They are coming at it from their blueblood horse broadcasting perspective. Not from that of some cowboy factory worker who loves the sport, loves his horses, and went all in on taking the risk to sire this horse.

[EastCoastCat]

I thought the "coward" remark was alittle over the top and came across as a sore loser.

The issue Colburn raises is a good one though and should be debated. I wouldn't change the rules per se (i.e. you must enter all 3 races) but i might consider extending the length of time in between each race by a week.

Still will be tough for any horse to do it but gives them a little more of a fighting chance and it doesn't directly impact the historical significance.

[CalStateTempe]

I agree ECC.

Also, have to remember that back then, only 5 or 6 other horses were running each race. Today it a very crowded field.

[SCCat]

Steve Coburn 'very ashamed'

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/triplec ... own-system

Steve Coburn, the co-owner of California Chrome, apologized for his two-day rant against Belmont Stakes winner Tonalist and the Triple Crown rules during an emotional interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday.

Coburn and his wife, Carolyn, hoped to undo any damage inflicted by his previous interviews, saying he wanted to "apologize to everyone associated with Tonalist" and "all the horse racing in the world."

"Very ashamed of myself," Steve Coburn told GMA. "Very ashamed. I need to apologize to a lot of people."

I know what I think doesn't matter, but with that apology I personally would consider this episode forgiven and forgotten.