I think Bob Costas and Kenny Rice were both par for the course in trying for a negetive reaction. It's NBC's modus operandi. Granted, Steve Coburn gave 'em what they wanted, but from what I've seen of him in person, he's an ole timey guy who's a working dude that came within 2 lengths of sweeping the Triple Crown on his very first try. Roy Chapman wasn't the most gracious of commenters after Smarty Jones lost his Belmont either.
I wouldn't say it was classless or anything, or say something to the effect of he knew the rules, etc. Sure, he knows the rules, but in the heat of the moment after watching and feeling so disappointed, and someone goes and shoves a mic in your face, well, the good ole boy just let it out. They've never been under that kind of pressure before, small time owners and all. He probably shouldn't have said it the way he said it, but, what can you do.
I do think that Steve Coburn has a point. It used to be that horses ran a lot more than they did, and there wasn't so much emphasis on long layoffs for horses and races have been moved around because of that. I know that the Triple Crown is supposed to be a challenge and that the Triple Crown winners have all faced new challengers. And they rightfully should, being able to take on the new horses and turn them back is all part of the game, because otherwise it's just beating up on the same old horses and where's the fun in that.
But, I think that the racing industry needs to change in how horses are run. It's become a trend in racing to have fresh horses set out to play Triple Crown spoilers. And by fresh, I really mean fresh. They come off 4+ week layoffs to come up against a horse who pretty much has to keep to that schedule and it usually ends up a spoiler. Do I think the race schedule should change? No. I think it's fine the way it is. Does it take a truly great horse to overcome the odds. Yes, but as we've always seen, sometimes the best horse doesn't win the race for whatever reason. Would we see a Triple Crown every year if we changed the races as the naysayers keep trying to bring up? No, racing is a combination of luck and skill, but the fact that there is now a 37 year drought is saying something.
Of the new shooters that ran yesterday, the first and second place finishers ran in the Peter Pan on May 10th. It's always been a prep race for the Belmont, but the dates changed a few years ago, giving the horses that run in it more time to rest up. When horses like Coastal and A.P. Indy (neither of whom ran in the Derby or Preakness) won, they pretty much only had 2 weeks to rest between the Peter Pan and the Belmont which made it a much more level playing field between all horses.
The same thing goes for the trend for running horses in the Derby, sitting out the Preakness and then aiming for the Belmont. Used to be, horses would do that all the time. Even in the years that there were Triple Crown victories. But those horses would have run in a race between the Derby and Belmont (sometimes as early as a week or so before) instead of coming into the race off a 5 week layoff. Heck, in Slew's Belmont, he and Run Dusty Run were the 'fresh' horses and Sir Sir had managed to get in a race (Jersey Derby) between the Preakness and the Belmont while also racing in the KY Derby. But now, horses like Empire Maker and Birdstone (who ironically was my pick in the Derby and despite the fact that there was a Triple Crown on the line, I liked him for the Belmont) came into the Belmont to spoil the TC bid. They can, I know that. Nothing that says they can't.
But man, it wasn't like watching Victory Gallop and Real Quiet duke it out in all three races only for the "Fish" to lose by a nose. Once upon a time, there were horses who ran in all three races. Or at least ran a race the same day or near enough to the Preakness.
They sure don't make 'em like they used to.