main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Arena Equestrian/Horse Racing Discussion

Discussion in 'Community' started by Skywalker8921, Jun 8, 2014.

  1. Skywalker8921

    Skywalker8921 Jedi Knight star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2011
    After the disappointing upset of California Chrome yesterday at Belmont by Tonalist, who did not run in either the Derby or the Preakness, Chrome's co owner Steve Coburn aired his disappointment and frustration with the media.

    - said Chrome and jockey Victor Espinoza had a target on their backs
    - Tonalist's owner took "coward's way out"
    - only horses who run both Derby and Preakness should be allowed to compete at Belmont
    - said he'll never see another Triple Crown winner unless rules are changed

    It has also been suggested by others that the length of time between each race should be increased, since running three races in five weeks can be hard on a horse.

    What do you think? Should horses have to compete in all three races instead of choosing? Should the length of time between Derby/Preakness and Preakness/Belmont be extended? Or both?

    I definitely think the time between races should be lengthened to give horses time to rest. As for the other, I'm not really sure. Maybe Coburn has a point, but the past Triple Crown winners faced a field that had some fresh horses, didn't they, and still won?
     
  2. jp-30

    jp-30 Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 14, 2000
    No.
     
  3. Skywalker8921

    Skywalker8921 Jedi Knight star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Care to explain why? And do you say no to both suggestions or just one?
     
  4. LifeInTechnicolor

    LifeInTechnicolor Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 3, 2012
    It would be nice for all the horses to be in all three races. It would be more fair. Correct me if I am wrong, but since I've been following the horse racing industry since 2007, I believe every potential Triple Crown was upset by a horse that was not in the first two races.
     
  5. Skywalker8921

    Skywalker8921 Jedi Knight star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2011
    The 2008 Belmont winner was Da'Tara, who did not, it seems, run either Derby or Preakness.

    Union Rags, the 2012 Belmont winner, did compete in the Derby but not the Preakness.

    Three attempts since 2007, two spoiled by non Derby or Preakness running horses.
     
  6. DarthIntegral

    DarthIntegral Baseball Draft Commish star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 13, 2005
    No. No changes needed. It's supposed to be rare. It's supposed to be tough. Winning the Triple Crown means doing something amazing.

    Conquering the exact same foes three times with an extended break? That doesn't sound do amazing to me.

    Plus, the more time you put between races the more casual fans you lose.

    How about billionaires who own race horses shut up and lose with grace? That's a change I'd be in favor of.
     
  7. Juliet316

    Juliet316 Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005
    On the other hand, it's clear he put a lot of investment in California Chrome and you could just see the crushing disappointment on his face when California Chrome lost. Whether he's right or wrong, I can't necessarily fault him for letting the emotion of the moment rule when the reporters went to interview him.
     
  8. darth_gersh

    darth_gersh Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2005
    I don't like that they beat their horses to go faster.
     
    Rogue_Ten and PRENNTACULAR like this.
  9. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    this is sounding a lot like "its unfair because its supposed to be unfair"
     
  10. heels1785

    heels1785 JCC Manager star 9 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Nearly impossible to say. Can't compare it to the other machine-based racing sports, really, so it's most closely paralleled to individual sports based solely on endurance, that also have their version of Triple Crowns- the tennis and golf Grand Slams. Players can skip in and out of those tournaments all the time, without much criticism. However, they don't all take place in a 2-month span.

    Personally, I'd like to see all of the horses run all of the races. Moreso because I selfishly want to see a Triple Crown winner in my lifetime, and this would increase the chances of it. There really is no right, objective answer, though.
     
  11. beezel26

    beezel26 Jedi Master star 7

    Registered:
    May 11, 2003
    If you are an owner and don't want to run your horse in all three races then obviously the horse is a loser. Honestly all the horses should run all three races win or lose. That way the winners are all the owners cause their horses competed. You end up with stronger horses and more willing owners. You want the triple crown you have to earn it against all the other owners going balls in. The owners that put their horse in one race are simple cowards who want the good life that comes with looking like a winner when you are not. Mark my words the winner of the Belmont is now the one with the target on his back. He looks like the coward. Chrome went down fighting and he got the owner of the other horse muddy with him.
     
  12. CT-867-5309

    CT-867-5309 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2011
    I don't pay any attention to horse racing, but a quick wiki check told me this.


    Big Brown didn't even finish at Belmont in 2008.

    I'll Have Another didn't even start at Belmont in 2012 due to injury.

    Looks like zero attempts spoiled by rested horses since 2007.

    However, Birdstone skipped the Preakness when he beat Smarty Jones in 2004, as did Empire Maker when he beat Funny Cide in 2003.

    I wouldn't be surprised if it's common for legit contenders to skip the Preakness after failing to win the Derby, there's no possibility of winning the TC anyway. Empire Maker was the betting favorite at the Derby in 2003, but finished 2nd to Funny Cide.

    And no, horses shouldn't have to compete in all three races, that's a terrible idea. Extending rest time isn't a terrible idea in theory, but it isn't exactly fair to all the previous winners, either.

    Stick with tradition.
     
  13. dp4m

    dp4m Also a Narc star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    No.

    The goal is for A horse to win one of the Big Three races and make money for their owners. Depriving them of their best chance to succeed in exchange for an overall, relatively meaningless additional cash bump for one owner (at the expense of moneys for all other owners) would never fly.
     
  14. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I think instituting a few changes could help improve this events. In the future, the Triple Crown should:

    1. End widespread doping, including the use of Lasix without true medical indications. Enforce with a meaningful and stringent testing regime.

    2. Institute mandatory freeze-outs for injured animals, and wholesale restructuring of events that routinely lead to injury, like exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage, rather than allowing pre-emptory treatment of injuries no animals need sustain in the first place. If a substantial risk of injury-free performance cannot be eliminated absent pre-medicatiing, discontinue entirely.

    3. End all of other forms of animal abuse associated with these events not mentioned above.

    4. Ban all forms of gambling or other prospective wagers on the outcome

    5. Educate the ignorant masses who take this awful, classist event as a point of pride or "culture"

    6. Stop alcohol sales at the event

    7. Not be races
     
  15. Juliet316

    Juliet316 Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005
    I think Horse Racing (especially in NY) is working on #1 and #2.

    Good luck on trying for 4-7. Not gonna happen.
     
  16. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    The reason I like this analysis is because it breaks sports down to its very basics: money.
     
  17. dp4m

    dp4m Also a Narc star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001

    That's all horse racing is!
     
    Darth_Invidious and Rogue_Ten like this.
  18. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Sports*
     
    Juliet316 likes this.
  19. VadersLaMent

    VadersLaMent Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
    If 7 then the incredible movie The Black Stallion might never have been made.
     
  20. PRENNTACULAR

    PRENNTACULAR VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2005

    *professional sports.
     
  21. DarthTunick

    DarthTunick Game Host - SfC Part V BOFF star 10 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Nov 26, 2000


    So obviously your inferring that anyone who enjoys a horse race is an ignorant fool? Yeah, no. Just no.
     
  22. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    As opposed to what? The NCAA? High school sports? Yeah, those aren't about money at all. .
     
    Juliet316 and Lord Vivec like this.
  23. dp4m

    dp4m Also a Narc star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    I think there are limited examples of sports not being about money, but they are limited (e.g. equestrian) rather than being feeder systems to money making opportunities (e.g. baseball, basketball, soccer, football, etc. at basically all levels).
     
  24. tom

    tom Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 14, 2004
    hackey sack, dudes. or a round of frisbee golf with your bros.
     
    Rogue_Ten and PRENNTACULAR like this.
  25. dp4m

    dp4m Also a Narc star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001

    I said "sports."

    :p