crazietalk.net

Lavabe wrote:

windsor wrote:That's why they HARD and winners few and far between. I am looking back at the other horses since the 70s who won the Derby and the Preakness -


2012 I'll have Another - scratched from Belmont (lame)
2008 Big Brown - pulled up lame (cracked hoof)
2004 Smarty Jones - lost to Birdstone who ran derby and not Preakness
2003 Funny Cide - finished 3 behind Empire Maker (skipped preakness) and Ten Most Wanted (also skipped Preakness)
2002 War Emblem - fell out of starting gate, was never a factor
1999 Charismatic - lame during race
1979 Seatle Slew - finished 3rd behind Coastal (who did neither preceding race - his owners paid an additional 12k to enter him since he had not won a qualifying race of any kind and Golden Act who did indeed run the other two.

There have only ever been 12 winners. It is extremely difficult. CC's owner is a whiner. He is disgracing the Triple Crown.

IMHO, of course

Umm... hold on there...
I attended the 77 (Slew triple crown), 78 (Affirmed triple crown: I was trackside at the finish line in the stands... still can't believe it), and 79 Belmonts.
79 was Spectacular Bid, who flubbed the Belmont, while allegations circulated about the horse stepping on a safety pin, the jockey (Ronnie Franklin), and just about everything else. Stupid ass 1-5 Spectacular Bid failed... he went a suicidal first 3/4s in 1:11 3/5, led by 3 lengths at the top of the stretch, and then ran out of gas.

But I certainly agree with windsor's point: dude was a whining disgrace. Glad he apologized today, but still.

I think there are three major factors in our lack of a triple crown winner that are more important than fresh competitors in the belmont.

1. Field size: most triple crown winners raced the Belmont in a small field. For example, Affirmed and Secretariat ran against four horses each. More recently, we've seen fields of 10, 12, 14 in the Belmont. Even if the horses aren't contenders, extra traffic leads to mishaps. They're saying California Chrome got stepped on and it may have affected him. If the field were five, would he have gotten stepped on? Maybe. Maybe not. In NASCAR terms, wouldn't it be harder to win in a field of 43 than a field of 22, just due to traffic if nothing else?

2. Experience at the distance: before 1980, 1.5 miles was a common distance. Most triple crown racers had run at least two races at that distance, some many more. All three triple crown races were 1.5 miles back in the early 20th century, then changed. After 1980, race track designers started to realize that people preferred sprints to marathons, and started building accordingly. The vast majority of participants in the Belmont over the last two decades had NEVER run a race longer than 1.25 miles. I don't believe any of the KD/PS winners since then had.

3. Breeding: if you look at video of Secretariat, O'Henry, Affirmed, or other triple crown winners, they look like clydesdales next to today's racers. They were bigger and stronger, with thicker, more muscular legs. Breeders have striven for the arabian stallion standard so much, they've developed faster horses, but ended up with horses with slender, weak ankles, lung problems, and compromised immune systems. I don't think they have the stamina of the horses 40 years ago, the stamina to win two sprints followed closely by a marathon. Horses with the speed to win the first two lack the fortitude to finish the third. They've bred out the horses' ability to win the triple crown.

Yes, it's hard to win against horses that didn't run the first two races, but I think field size, experience, and breeding over the last two decades have made it nearly impossible to win under such circumstances.

Sounds perfectly logical to me.
Love, Ima

Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:Sounds perfectly logical to me.
Love, Ima

I think he's just horsing around .

bjornolf wrote:I think there are three major factors in our lack of a triple crown winner that are more important than fresh competitors in the belmont.

1. Field size: most triple crown winners raced the Belmont in a small field. For example, Affirmed and Secretariat ran against four horses each. More recently, we've seen fields of 10, 12, 14 in the Belmont. Even if the horses aren't contenders, extra traffic leads to mishaps. They're saying California Chrome got stepped on and it may have affected him. If the field were five, would he have gotten stepped on? Maybe. Maybe not. In NASCAR terms, wouldn't it be harder to win in a field of 43 than a field of 22, just due to traffic if nothing else?

2. Experience at the distance: before 1980, 1.5 miles was a common distance. Most triple crown racers had run at least two races at that distance, some many more. All three triple crown races were 1.5 miles back in the early 20th century, then changed. After 1980, race track designers started to realize that people preferred sprints to marathons, and started building accordingly. The vast majority of participants in the Belmont over the last two decades had NEVER run a race longer than 1.25 miles. I don't believe any of the KD/PS winners since then had.

3. Breeding: if you look at video of Secretariat, O'Henry, Affirmed, or other triple crown winners, they look like clydesdales next to today's racers. They were bigger and stronger, with thicker, more muscular legs. Breeders have striven for the arabian stallion standard so much, they've developed faster horses, but ended up with horses with slender, weak ankles, lung problems, and compromised immune systems. I don't think they have the stamina of the horses 40 years ago, the stamina to win two sprints followed closely by a marathon. Horses with the speed to win the first two lack the fortitude to finish the third. They've bred out the horses' ability to win the triple crown.

Yes, it's hard to win against horses that didn't run the first two races, but I think field size, experience, and breeding over the last two decades have made it nearly impossible to win under such circumstances.

I agree 100%. The three longest races Chrome ever ran were the Belmont, Derby and Preakness.
Secretariat was not called 'Big Red' for nothing. 16.2 hands (roughly 5'6" at the withers) He also had a larger heart than the average thoroughbred. He was one of those freaks of nature that comes along. His records for all 3 TC races still stand.

I have seen similar things happen with certain dog breeds - where form for the sake of fashion trumped function. With race horses I hope it will swing back the other way if for no other reason than these horses are to fragile. A 'broken' horse can't race and a horse that can't race doesn't earn $$. I little more durability would go a long way.

This is how you win the Belmont

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfCMtaNiMDM



I read an interview with Secretariat's jockey Ron Turcotte who said Big Red was still accelerating at the finish and he had 'plenty of horse left'.

They don't make 'em like that anymore.

Thank you all for educating us on horse racing. I was sincerely clueless. I'm glad the dude apologized for his rant the next day.

devildeac wrote:

Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:Sounds perfectly logical to me.
Love, Ima

I think he's just horsing around .

Well, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

bjornolf wrote: 2. Experience at the distance: before 1980, 1.5 miles was a common distance. Most triple crown racers had run at least two races at that distance, some many more. All three triple crown races were 1.5 miles back in the early 20th century, then changed. After 1980, race track designers started to realize that people preferred sprints to marathons, and started building accordingly. The vast majority of participants in the Belmont over the last two decades had NEVER run a race longer than 1.25 miles. I don't believe any of the KD/PS winners since then had.

Interesting points, bjornolf, but I think it goes a little further back than 1980.

1.5 miles common before 1980? I don't think so. Maybe before 1970. I was a bit of a railbird during 1977-1983. I can recall a few of the turf races that would go that distance or longer (including 1 5/8 miles). But even in the 1970s, the trend was for shorter races than the 1 1/2 miles of the Belmont. In the early 70s, I don't recall ever hearing Riva Ridge or Secretariat ever going 1 1/4 miles before the Derby.

I have never heard of two year olds running the 1 1/2 mile distance. The Champagne, Hopeful, Sanford, and other 2 yr old stakes races have never been that distance. Three year old triple crown horses running that distance "at least two times?" Maybe AFTER the Belmont, but not before. Derby preps like the Wood, Florida Derby, Gotham, Arkansas Derby, Santa Anita Derby, and the Blue Grass Stakes have never been that long. Man o' War, for example, was held out of the KyDerby because the owner thought it was too early to run the horse at the 1 1/4 mile distance. Sir Barton won the Triple Crown, never having gone 1 1/2 miles in the three races. In his Triple Crown year, the Derby and the Preakness were only FOUR DAYS APART!! Gallant Fox won the Triple Crown by winning the Preakness, Derby, and Belmont (in that order).

According to Wiki (and we know how trustworthy that source is), the Ky Derby initially was run at 1 1/2 miles, but changed to its current 1 1/4 miles in 1896. The Preakness was last run at 1 1/2 miles in 1890; it's been 1 3/16 miles since 1925. The Belmont has been 1 1/2 miles since 1926.

But again, I agree with most of your points.
And I did not stay at a Holiday Inn... I do, however, live in Lexington, KY right off Man o'War.

My favorite horse was Easy Goer. I was a bit too young to see Secretariat and to a lesser extent Seattle Slew and Affirmed on the track. EG ran the fastest ever 1 mile on dirt by a 3 year old and had the second fastest Belmont behind Secretariat.

Where is everybody?

HELLO?

HELLO?

HELLO?

HELLO?

Hello?

hello?

hello?

...

bjornolf wrote:Where is everybody?

HELLO?

HELLO?

HELLO?

HELLO?

Hello?

hello?

hello?

...

Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone at home?

(Quoting Pink Floyd may have just caused a retro-active )

The devil in Iowa is here!

I am here, sporadically. Thank God for wifi in the hospital.

And for an ice machine directly across the hall.

I need an ArkieDukie soap opera fix. I am going through serious withdrawals.

TillyGalore wrote:I need an ArkieDukie soap opera fix. I am going through serious withdrawals.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Road Runner met with someone from HR yesterday and learned that there's not enough negative documentation to justify firing BM. Quelle surprise. She's going to work on that. In the meantime, it appears that the director of the core lab is VERY interested in hiring BM for the position he chatted with me about. He's cheap and likes her salary better than mine. I cannot see her as a good fit for that position; it involves collaborating with others. She is incapable of doing that.

ArkieDukie wrote:

TillyGalore wrote:I need an ArkieDukie soap opera fix. I am going through serious withdrawals.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Road Runner met with someone from HR yesterday and learned that there's not enough negative documentation to justify firing BM. Quelle surprise. She's going to work on that. In the meantime, it appears that the director of the core lab is VERY interested in hiring BM for the position he chatted with me about. He's cheap and likes her salary better than mine. I cannot see her as a good fit for that position; it involves collaborating with others. She is incapable of doing that.

I feel better, thank you!

Any word on BM's hostile environment compliant to HR?

I am very bored.

Still waiting for word on rehab.