Steve Coburn

So, Steve Coburn, the owner of California Chrome, expressed his opinions after losing the Belmot last Saturday. I'm no horse racing expert but I wondered what the forum members thought of what he had to say. Vote for more than one item if you like.

Why is it such a big deal that Chrome only had 3 weeks of rest between races? It seems like running 1 1/4 miles 3 weeks ago and then running 1 1/2 miles isn't really that rigorous, especially to a horse. Is there a standard industry turn around time between races that most trainers follow?

Good luck to him getting all 3 state racing commissions to agree on uniform rules

Im playing the world smallest violin in his honor and eating a whinebrger with some French cries.

The guy doesn't even own a majority stake in CC! Why does Coburn get any media attention and Perry Martin, the 70% owner of CC not get the label of "CC's owner".

With Coburn's ridiculous act after the Belmont along with the fact that he isn't even the managing partner that directs where CC goes from here, the guy is irrelevant.

Quote: aceofspades

Good luck to him getting all 3 state racing commissions to agree on uniform rules

More importantly, isn't the Triple Crown a result of winning all three, not the purpose of all three races? It's a side effect of winning the three most prestigious 3 year old races in the US. Not a competition in and of itself. It's like claiming that only tennis players who played at Wimbledon, the French Open and the Australian Open can play at the US Open, lest someone stop another player winning the Grand Slam.

In short, he's looking at this from the wrong direction. The Triple Crown is not a competition, it's a title for winning three, separate competitions.

I think he's just a big cry baby. He knew the rules going in. The way it is set up is what makes it one of, if not the toughest things to do in sports. Winning the Triple Crown is more rare than a no hitter or hitting for the cycle in baseball, more rare than a 50 point game in basketball and more rare than throwing for over 40 TD's in a 16 game NFL season. Only a rare few horses are that good to do it.

California Chrome tried and failed, just like many others. Seattle Slew, Affirmed and Secretariat didn't need the rules to be changed. In 2005 Afleet Alex got 3rd in the Kentucky Derby but then got first in the next two races of the Triple Crown. Somehow that horse won the Belmont and raced the previous two races.

Too much crying in this world!


ZCore13

I think he's completely wrong that the other horses were entered simply to prevent CC (or any other horse) from winning the Triple Crown. The Belmont has a huge purse and the winner took home $800,000. That's plenty of incentive to enter a horse like Tonalist.

I suppose it comes down to whether you see the Triple Crown as a true series or just 3 unrelated races you have to win. In some ways it's like winning a Grand Slam title in tennis: you just win the major open tournaments - Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open - and you win the Grand Slam. No one would ever suggest that someone couldn't play in the US Open if they hadn't played the other tournaments.

I think at least some of what was said was done so in the "heat of the moment". He is hot headed but nobody can be that utterly silly to say such a thing on national television, can he?

I see he has apologised for his comments and I'm sure he feels pretty bad about it now. He has almost the entire horse racing community against him AND he didn't manage to win the TC with a horse he owns only about 30% in.

Must be tough.

I think somebody stuck a microphone in his face at just the wrong time and he vented.

That said,

It was one of the slowest Preaknesses to at least the 1/2way point, according to the commentators.

The jockey said the horse was off, that when he dug deep, the horse didn't respond.

He got cut somehow on the foreleg. I'm guessing he got kicked on the backstretch, when he got hemmed in.

Not suggesting any conspiracy theories, just wondering about the jockey's game plan and follow-through. Why not let the horse run early instead of getting cornered and beat up?

All in all, perhaps the horse just didn't have what it took. I don't know enough about racing to draw any conclusions. But blaming the competition when the race was slow was lame. If it had been some kind of record time, maybe that opinion has some validity.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I think somebody stuck a microphone in his face at just the wrong time and he vented.

That said,

It was one of the slowest Preaknesses to at least the 1/2way point, according to the commentators.

The jockey said the horse was off, that when he dug deep, the horse didn't respond.

He got cut somehow on the foreleg. I'm guessing he got kicked on the backstretch, when he got hemmed in.

Not suggesting any conspiracy theories, just wondering about the jockey's game plan and follow-through. Why not let the horse run early instead of getting cornered and beat up?

All in all, perhaps the horse just didn't have what it took. I don't know enough about racing to draw any conclusions. But blaming the competition when the race was slow was lame. If it had been some kind of record time, maybe that opinion has some validity.

First off "Belmont" but don't worry, you are forgiven :)

He was also not cut into on the back stretch, he more than likely injured the bottom of his hoof upon coming out of the stalls. I don't believe the injury could have been sustained during the actual free galloping of the race due to the location of the injury......anyway such an injury, although uncomfortable doesn't affect a horses stride or even ability to run.

For me there were no excuses. He didn't see out the trip, plain and simple. Something I said from the beginning he would have a problem with. Not only is it as far as these horses will more than likely ever run, it is also on a track with notoriously deep sand.

He is a class horse, no doubt. I mean you don't win both the Derby and Preakness if you are a clunker but the Belmont was always going to be the tester and unfortunately he failed.

Quote: Tomspur

First off "Belmont" but don't worry, you are forgiven :)

He was also not cut into on the back stretch, he more than likely injured the bottom of his hoof upon coming out of the stalls. I don't believe the injury could have been sustained during the actual free galloping of the race due to the location of the injury......anyway such an injury, although uncomfortable doesn't affect a horses stride or even ability to run.

For me there were no excuses. He didn't see out the trip, plain and simple. Something I said from the beginning he would have a problem with. Not only is it as far as these horses will more than likely ever run, it is also on a track with notoriously deep sand.

He is a class horse, no doubt. I mean you don't win both the Derby and Preakness if you are a clunker but the Belmont was always going to be the tester and unfortunately he failed.

Oops. My horse racing ignorance is showing. Belmont it was. lol....