The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

What do you think of Steve Coburn's rant at the Belmont?

6K views 67 replies 37 participants last post by  Jessabel 
#1 ·
I think he's absolutely right and my friends and I have been saying the same thing for years. I was explaining the Triple Crown to my coworkers and even they were surprised that fresh horses can enter the Belmont. Of course the horse that has run two major races just weeks before doesn't have much of a chance.

However, on the flip side, that's what makes it such a big deal. It takes a truly great horse to be able to accomplish it. I've read a lot of speculation over the last several years that today's Thoroughbreds simply aren't bred up to the challenge anymore.
 
#6 ·
Sounds like sour grapes. Good points, yes. But he comes off as a sore looser by saying it right after the race like that.

I would have like to have seen a triple crown winner as well.

Is it truly the short time span between races or is just that it's hard for a horse to be a sprinter and a distance runner too?
 
#10 ·
In my opinion, it is a combination of several factors which make winning the triple crown so difficult. The short time between races, the distances (1 1/2 miles is the longest tb's in the US race), and also the traffic. The Derby has 20 horses generally, and most races don't have so many. Also, the manner in which horses are raised & kept i believe is part of the issue.

I believe Steve made some valid points, however the manner and timing of delivery left alot to be desired. And the former winners all faced the same challenges. That is part of the triple crown glory.
 
#7 ·
IMHO--if the races are run with the connection they have--1st jewel, 2nd jewel and 3rd jewel of the triple crown then i feel that running in the derby and preakness should be qualifiers for the belmont--and only those horses should be there running against each other--even if by the time they got to the belmont only 2-3 of the original field made it--at least it truly would be the best against the best--not the fresh against the tired. it is a grueling schedule of races.

as for Steve Coburn--certainly not tactful in timing or place. he could have mentioned it with a different attitude and many who feel that way would be in agreement with him but the way he did certainly comes across as "sour grapes" and that has no place in the "sport of kings"!!!
 
#8 ·
Do any of you think these rules haven't been in place since the inception of the Triple Crown, or that Chrome's owner wasn't aware of them? He knew, he just figured he had a shoe-in so was willing to deal with the rules until his horse didn't win.

There has never been a Triple Crown winner who DIDN'T have to go up against fresh horses. Even Secretariat did, yet managed to win the Belmont by 31 lengths.

So yeah, total sour grapes by a whiny sore loser. Poor guy, guess the millions he'll make on stud fees will help soothe his poor, tortured soul.
 
#9 · (Edited)
I pretty much agree with everything everyone else had to say.

I agree with what he had to say, and he was right. But he should have been a more gracious looser because in the end his horse had an amazing go at the triple crown and he should be proud of what they accomplished.

I thought it was wrong time, wrong place and made him look a little bit like the mascot his team was named after. It made me care for him a bit less, in all honesty.

NPR had a really brilliant article about the changes in the racing industry and why a new Triple Crown Crown winner will be a real challenge. One of the reasons is that horses aren't run or trained as hard as they used to be so they don't necessary have the endurance built up for the TC anymore. - According to the article.
 
#11 ·
These races have been like this since the inception of the Triple Crown Award. What does everyone think makes it so prestigious? A horse that can increase the distance, race with short intervals, AND still win against fresh horses, THAT'S the whole point of the Triple Crown. Would I LOVE to see a Triple Crown winner in my lifetime? ABSOLUTELY! Do I think the rules need to be changed to make it easier? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

I don't agree with him and I don't agree with his "WAAHHH!! I didn't win!!" rant. It was unprofessional through and through. The industry loved having Steve represent the "every man" because he made it easy to gain publicity - he was honest, endearing, and relatable. Well, the downside we found was that he's also a sore loser, and that's disappointing for everyone. He should have listened to his wife and backed off. Instead, he brushed her off, dismissed her, and continued his vent. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong audience.

That being said, his horse may have really had it in him to win after it came out that he was injured at the starting gate. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but he ran an amazing race with an injury. Now the "What ifs" come into play and I don't doubt that the owners will have something to say about that, too. Hopefully, things are handled with considerably more class from here on out, though.
 
#12 ·
Agreed, Sea.

Doesn't matter whether or not there were fresh horses in the race, as he clipped a quarter and was running hurt. He'd have still lost, regardless.

That's the chance they take, as any horse can be injured in any race. Barbaro, Eight Belles, and Ruffian all come to mind.

Instead of whinging about fresh horses, maybe people should be clamoring to make racing illegal for 2 and 3 year olds. They're still growing babies, and more prone to injury.
 
#14 ·
Exactly, Labrador.

He knew the rules going in, and didn't say SQUAT about them when his horse won the Derby and Preakness. Now all of a sudden the rules are unfair and need to be changed? Um, sure you big, fat hypocrite.
 
#15 ·
The "Triple Crown" means you have won three crowns. Each crown is for winning a separate race. Somebody just came up with the idea that a horse should get special recognition for winning all three. They might just as easily come up with the idea of a "Double Crown" for winning two races or a "Quadruple Crown" for winning four races. With the third race, only one horse is competing for the triple crown, none of the other competitors could win that title even if they won the race. In most years, no horse has a chance at winning the title since no horse has won both of the first two races.
 
#16 ·
Just how "fresh" do you think these "fresh" horses are??? Just how worn out and tired are the horses who ran the other races? After three weeks?

These "fresh" horses are worked very hard all week long. When you just gallop the horse is one thing. But these horses go through regular "works" which are every bit as taxing as running a real race. These horse have probably done race-like works as often as the other horses did, including the races they ran.

There is not that big an advantage being a "fresh" horse.
 
#17 ·
I thought it was very unprofessional. Regardless of whether or not he had a point, it was the wrong time, place, method, and person to say it.

Sounded like he was just bitter. There have been numerous horses like California Chrome who have lost that third race. That's why it's hard and the horse who wins DESERVES it.

The Triple Crown would be way easier and way less impressive if it was ran the way he wanted it to run.

Not saying he doesn't have a point, it'd be much more fair for all horses, but at the same time, it'd be an entirely new triple crown race. It'd be like Triple Crown 2.0.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
This is a 'nice' horse. He was never a 'super horse' or a 'great horse'. "He ain't no Secretariat."

His Derby time was very slow. The fractions were as slow as claimers run.

His Preakness times and fractions were better, but had a speed horse jumped out and run a AAA 1/4 he would have had to run a much different race than he did and probably would not have won it. It was obvious he had no 'kick' at the end and he had to go a lot farther than either the Derby or Preakness.

So, I was very skeptical that he could pull it off -- for the very reason he lost -- a better distance horse would be better at the 1 1/2 miles. To have a Triple Crown winner, it is going to take a 'super horse' and those have gotten crippled trying since the last Triple Crown winner. I was really hoping he could pull it off but very skeptical that he could.

I think the rant on air took a lot of the shine off of this horse's chrome. He will be remembered more for his owner's 'poor loser rant' than for what he did accomplish. It was not a show of 'good sportsmanship' that could have made what he did do look so much better than it does now.
 
#21 ·
*shrug* He's only human. A lot of hope was riding on this horse (I was certainly hoping he would win :>), and so it's not unfair for him to be disappointed. Did he handle it incorrectly? Sure. But people say things at the wrong time everyday. I don't think people should get so bent out of shape.

As far as the rules... It's always been this way. Fair or unfair, it's not like it's a surprise.
 
#23 ·
watching him after the 1st quarter i remarked--"no way, he is tired or hurting somewhere"! then saw the replay coming out of the gate and understood. he was not running great and he was not running poorly--he was just running--but holding his own while the others did what they were asked to do...he finished the race graciously which is more than i can say for his human. however i do understand the voice fueled by passion of the moment is not always pleasing.

someone correct me if needed (not going to say how many yrs away from thoroughbreds) but when it was obvious to me that there was nothing more for chrome to give on the stretch--could the jockey not feel that??? IMHO there was a bit of excessive crop use on a horse that was running with a great deal of effort (and possibly in pain). all things considered he ran a great race!!! this morning the owner can go give him a carrot--something many owners could not do after one of these races. R.I.P. Eight Belles--always the rightful winner of that race in my eyes!
 
#63 ·
watching him after the 1st quarter i remarked--"no way, he is tired or hurting somewhere"! then saw the replay coming out of the gate and understood. he was not running great and he was not running poorly--he was just running--but holding his own while the others did what they were asked to do...he finished the race graciously which is more than i can say for his human. however i do understand the voice fueled by passion of the moment is not always pleasing.

someone correct me if needed (not going to say how many yrs away from thoroughbreds) but when it was obvious to me that there was nothing more for chrome to give on the stretch--could the jockey not feel that??? IMHO there was a bit of excessive crop use on a horse that was running with a great deal of effort (and possibly in pain). all things considered he ran a great race!!! this morning the owner can go give him a carrot--something many owners could not do after one of these races. R.I.P. Eight Belles--always the rightful winner of that race in my eyes!
I agree.....I was very surprised to see the jockey using that crop like that. He should have been able to tell that his horse was laboring & not able to pick up the pace. :oops:
 
#25 ·
I think tired horses versus fresh horses is a poor excuse from a man who "played the game in short pants". A great horse beats the odds and wins. That is why a triple crown is so rare. Belmont is the hardest jewel and having a horse win it is not something to make easier. I was a bit disappointed by NBCs focus and "chrome crush" I would have liked them to go to a video of the owners of the horse that won immediately after the race than to go to the video of the owners of the fourth place horse. Interview the jockey of the horse that won than go to chrome. Keep in mind that up to fourth place gets a piece of the purse money so, this was a successful day for chrome.

I also remember that in the trotting triple crown for standardbreds, the horses run elimination races the day of the race before the final. So, the winner of each jewel have run two races in one day for each jewel. There is a way to condition for endurance in a horse. The fact was that the distance defeated this horse.
 
#26 ·
I don't understand how horses can be "fresh", they're working out just like any other horse. I don't think there is a such a thing as a fresh horse. Why do you people act like none of the other horses have been having grueling workouts?

I don't think Chrome could have won it anyway, it was always questionable whether he could or not.

As for the Triple Crown rules, there is no true "Triple Crown races" it is something a racing writer made big. The races are not there just so there could be a Triple Crown winner. They are not in a league together or anything of the sort, and so therefore there should not be any rules about having to run in all three. What about the owners/trainers who just want to run in one? Who are not vying for the Triple Crown but still want a big race to their name? IMO California Chrome's owner was a big sore loser who didn't like the rules only when he lost. Would we have seen the rant if CC had won? I think not, and that says a lot.
 
#28 ·
I don't understand how horses can be "fresh", they're working out just like any other horse. I don't think there is a such a thing as a fresh horse. Why do you people act like none of the other horses have been having grueling workouts?

I don't think Chrome could have won it anyway, it was always questionable whether he could or not.

As for the Triple Crown rules, there is no true "Triple Crown races" it is something a racing writer made big. The races are not there just so there could be a Triple Crown winner. They are not in a league together or anything of the sort, and so therefore there should not be any rules about having to run in all three. What about the owners/trainers who just want to run in one? Who are not vying for the Triple Crown but still want a big race to their name? IMO California Chrome's owner was a big sore loser who didn't like the rules only when he lost. Would we have seen the rant if CC had won? I think not, and that says a lot.
Was just supposed to say people, it's not directed to people on the forum, more so everyone.
 
#27 ·
I was a bit disappointed by NBCs focus and "chrome crush" I would have liked them to go to a video of the owners of the horse that won immediately after the race than to go to the video of the owners of the fourth place horse. Interview the jockey of the horse that won than go to chrome.
I agree. I watched pretty much all the pre-race stuff they had on and they seemed to spend about 80% of the time talking about California Chrome. I get that people were excited about him, I sure was because it was really fun rooting for the home town "hero", but there were other horses there! And then even at the end the cameras stayed on Chrome and his crew and only flashed over to the winner for a couple of seconds here and there. I know he was the big story, but that was pretty disrespectful to the winner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top