California Chrome's owner, Steve Coburn, apologized today for his postrace comments on NBC immediately after his horse's attempt for the Triple Crown fell short at the Belmont Stakes. Coburn was obviously upset in the heat of the moment and he certainly came off as a sore loser more than anything else. And, sure, it was inappropriate to say that Tonalist's owners took the "coward's way out" by not running in either of the previous two Triple Crown races.
We're all disappointed that California Chrome didn't win the Triple Crown, moving the drought to 36 years and counting since Affirmed in 1978. It certainly looked like Chrome didn't have the legs to win at Belmont regardless of what the other horses were doing. Was he tired after running three races in five weeks? Who knows? Was it the 1 1/2-mile distance, which is the longest of the three Triple Crown races and longer than any of these horses have run before? Maybe. After all, if the Preakness had been the same distance as the Belmont, California Chrome gets caught in the end.
NBC, of course, loves the possibility of the Triple Crown. The ratings for the Belmont were off the charts, and attendance at the race was near record-numbers. At the betting windows, they took in more money than ever before (more than $19 million just at the track itself). When there's no chance at a Triple Crown, nobody cares about the Belmont Stakes. California Chrome fever took over, and every possible storyline was exhausted during the three weeks between the Preakness and the Belmont. It's a good thing California Chrome is a horse and knew nothing about this ridiculous hype.
When Secreteriat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed made it three Triple Crowns in five years, the hype machine was nowhere near what it was surrounding California Chrome (or Big Brown or Smarty Jones or any of the other nine horses that have tried and failed since Affirmed). There certainly wasn't a social media scene exploding every five seconds with some new angle or breaking news.
That's why Coburn's prediction that we'll never see another Triple Crown winner seems plausible. There's been Triple Crown droughts before. Secreteriat's Triple Crown in 1973 snapped a 25-year drought since one of the other all-time great racehorses, Citation, did it in 1948. However, this is the longest we've gone without a Triple Crown since Sir Barton won the first in 1919. I've never seen a Triple Crown winner in my lifetime and I, like most people, would love to see one. I'm optimistic that one day we will, but as the years go on and we see the contenders lose the Belmont in all kinds of different ways, the more I think that he might be right.
It probably wasn't the best idea NBC ever had to interview Coburn immediately after the race. I can understand why they did it. (They had likely arranged it ahead of time to talk to him win or lose.) But Coburn's emotions taking over and his tactless rant obviously took everything away from what had been a feel-good story over the preceding month. If you see through the anger and look at what he actually said, though, Coburn actually made some pretty good points.
He was absolutely right when he said California Chrome had a "target on his back." That, of course, was obvious. And that target becomes much bigger when the Derby winner also wins the Preakness. Everyone wants to see a Triple Crown. Except the owners of the horses that could be the potential spoiler.
Taking nothing away from Tonalist, who won the race and likely would've anyway, the most interesting thing that Coburn said was that it's not fair that the horse going for the Triple Crown is sometimes the only one that runs in all three races, always against fresh horses. He'd like to see that come to an end. Because the fresh horses are obviously going to have the advantage, especially since the Belmont is the longest in distance (that, more than any other reason might be why we haven't seen a Triple Crown in 36 years).
This was taken purely as sour grapes. But it's also interesting to note that other than California Chrome, Ride On Curlin and General A Rod were the only horses to run in all three Triple Crown races. Of the 11 horses to enter the Belmont, they were the only three to run in the Preakness. All of the others had either run the Kentucky Derby and skipped the Preakness or hadn't run in either of the prior two legs, which is what Tonalist did.
If Coburn had it his way, only the horses that qualify for the Kentucky Derby would get to run in the Preakness and Belmont Stakes. Now, they've only had qualifying for the Kentucky Derby since they capped the field at 20 about 15 years ago, so before then all three races were open to any horse that was entered. And out of those 20, how many would actually want to enter the Preakness when there's no chance of winning the Triple Crown? Even fewer would want to enter all three. And what does Coburn think of horses like Wicked Strong and Medal Count? They ran the Derby and skipped the Preakness. Is that OK?
I get what he was trying to say though. And maybe he's right in some way. It shouldn't be just "Kentucky Derby" qualifying. It should be "Triple Crown" qualifying. Maybe you increase it to 25-30 horses. Those ones ranked 21-30 can run the Preakness if they desire and all the Derby runners don't enter, then any horse that ran in either or both of the previous two races can enter the Belmont. That would at least limit the field of contenders.
Triple Crown races have been organized this way for nearly a century, so the likelihood of Steve Coburn getting that changed is slim to none. And maybe the system doesn't need to be changed. Winning all three races in a five-week span is supposed to be hard. That's why only 11 horses have done it. And that's why it's so tough to swallow when we have a horse come agonizingly close to joining that elite company only to fall short.
No comments:
Post a Comment