Yesterday's Disturbing Belmont Stakes

Yesterday, like so many others who were watching the Belmont Stakes on television, , I was rooting for California Chrome to pull out a victory and win the first Triple Crown in horse racing since 1978.  But alas, it was not to be, and Tonalist won a very close, exciting race.  California Chrome made a good run at it, but did not have the energy to overtake the leaders at the end and finished tied for fourth place.  I had watched the horses in the few minutes before the race and thought somehow that Tonalist needed watching...and that California Chrome was unusually relaxed, in contrast to its behavior before the Kentucky Derby and Preakness.  It was what happened immediately following the race, though, that bothered me...

First of all, I understand that the media was all focused on California Chrome since it was going for the big Triple Crown prize.  But once it had lost, the attention should have been directed at the actual winner, which was Tonalist.  Instead, the cameras almost completely ignored Tonalist, its jockey, trainer, owner...and went into a quick interview with the jockey for loser California Chrome.  They eventually interviewed Tonalist's jockey, who was very dignified and respectful.  Then they went over and interviewed California Chrome co-owner Steve Coburn, who went on an angry rant, crying foul and accusing those who had entered horses just for the Belmont and not for the other two races as being cowardly.  Besides the very unsportsmanlike tone of his comments, I think that Coburn was a bit of a hypocrite, too.  His horse California Chrome had been running with the advantage of a special strip placed above his nose that helped with breathing.  The Kentucky Derby and Preakness had allowed it in their rules, but the Belmont would have prohibited it had it not changed its own rule on the subject just to placate the California Chrome people.  Yet Coburn, with this special favored treatment given him, chose to play the victim and self-righteous accuser...

Out of the eleven horses running in the Belmont, eight had run in neither the Kentucky Derby nor the Preakness.  So I suppose if Coburn had gotten what he wanted, it would have been a three-horse race!  But think about what he was proposing, which was that only horses that had run in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness could enter the Belmont: it would mean that the winner would only be facing horses it had already beaten...skewing the odds in its favor.

There is a big reason why winning the Triple Crown is a big deal.  It is because such an accomplishment is a rare event due to the difficulty involved.  Winning it means your three-year old thoroughbred is the de-facto world champion, beating all comers.  But were things rearranged to the way Coburn wanted it, we would end up with probably at least three to four Triple Crown winners a decade, making the feat virtually insignificant...