Quote:
Originally Posted by JAAASH
I am so confused on that rant but I also don't know anything about horse racing. I mean aren't these all completely separated races governed by different bodies? They just make up the "Triple Crown" because someone came up with that name and that these three would comprise it? So it would be like Tiger Woods winning the first 3 majors of the year and failing to win the PGA and then ranting that some guy who didn't qualify for the Masters, US Open, or British Open that wins the final major of the year is a coward and it's not fair to him, right?
It's not a bad analogy, but consider that running the 3 races in 5 weeks could possibly leave a horse less than fresh for the final attempt. I would say every trainer believes this. Personally, I think this aspect is way overblown. The horses that ran in the Derby didn't have any trouble finishing 1, 2, and 4 in the Preakness just two weeks later. It could be a disadvantage, but it's not huge like it's made out to be. To me, it's clear that California Chrome is just not a stayer. He's nasty at shorter distances, but his speed figures have progressively gotten worse the longer he has been stretched out. 1 1/2 miles is too long for him. He won't race at that distance ever again. I said before the Preakness that I thought he would win the Preakness but not the Belmont. The Preakness is a very similar race to the Derby. The Belmont is very different.
But yeah, you are not missing anything. What he said makes no sense. The guy is a clown. Even worse, he was saying weeks ago that you should have to run in each race to run in the next one. That is even sillier than what he said today. The Belmont would be a 3-4 horse races nowadays.