Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Triple Crown (Horse Racing) California Chrome Owner a "Sore Loser".


DonLever

Recommended Posts

Steve Coburn, California Chrome's opinionated co-owner, stepped over the line Sunday morning at Belmont Park in live interviews with "Good Morning America" and ESPN, 13 hours after his colt failed to win the Triple Crown by dead-heating for fourth behind Tonalist in the Belmont Stakes.

Coburn again bitterly denounced owners and trainers of horses who didn't run in all three races of the series. Then he likened the advantage of fresh horses in the Belmont to being "like me, who's 6-2, playing basketball against a kid in a wheelchair."

He made the analogy in both interviews, and on "Good Morning America," he was asked if he considered it offensive. "No," he said. "I'm just trying to compare the two. Is it fair for me to play against a child in a wheelchair? Is it fair for them to hold their horses back?"

After the Belmont, Coburn vented on NBC, saying skipping the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness to prepare for the finale "is the coward's way out," pointing his finger as he said it. His wife, standing behind him, was seen telling him to stop. After the interview, he turned to her and yelled, "I don't care!"

Before Sunday's rant, Art Sherman, California Chrome's trainer, said he expected Coburn to apologize for Saturday's remarks. "I think in the heat of the moment, he got a little angry," Sherman said. "He hasn't been in the game long, and he hadn't had any bad luck. The horses aren't cowards, the people aren't cowards. He'll probably make a pretty good apology for that."

He did anything but.

"It's the truth, and I stand by what I said," Coburn told "Good Morning America."

"The 20 horses that run in the Kentucky Derby should be the only ones in the next two races. You might compare it to a triathlon, where you've got to bike, swim and run. If you don't do one of them, you're not going to make it to the other two."

Only two other horses, Ride On Curlin and General a Rod, ran in all three. Ride On Curlin bled and was eased. General a Rod finished seventh.

"I don't regret a thing I said," Coburn told ESPN. "Triple Crown means three. They nominate the horses for the Triple Crown. You have to earn points [from stakes] to qualify for the Derby. You don't need points to run in the Preakness or Belmont. If you want to call me a sore loser, have at it. You can call me up. Here's my number," then rattled off the 10 digits.

Two hours earlier, Tonalist's trainer, Christophe Clement, expressed surprise about Coburn's post-Belmont rant.

"That owner really got excited," he told Newsday. "You can't change the Triple Crown rules. To me, there is no controversy."

Clement found Coburn's accusations off base because he said he and owner Robert Evans originally planned to run in the Derby. Clement said there was no master plan to skip the first two races to freshen Tonalist for the Belmont.

"Mr. Evans would have loved to run in the Kentucky Derby," Clement said. "He had a workout I didn't like before the Wood. It was a minor issue, but he wasn't ready for the Wood, so he couldn't qualify for the Derby."

Evans said Saturday he had "no comment" on Coburn's remarks. Well, not a direct comment. Evans' late father, Thomas Mellon Evans, owned Pleasant Colony, first in the 1981 Derby and Preakness but third in the Belmont. Pleasant Colony also is the maternal grandsire of Tonalist, completing an Evans family Triple Crown.

"I've been where Steve Coburn's been, and it's not fun when you don't win," Evans said. "Pleasant Colony was a wonderful horse. It was very quiet when he didn't win, and it's very satisfying to be able to make up for that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's got a point in all honesty.

He's a grumpy whiner but he's got a point.

Like inserting a random team into the playoffs just because

*keeping in mind I know nothing about horse racing except Catherine the great loved her some horse meat*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like inserting a random team into the playoffs just because

it's not really like this at all, because the Belmont is its own race. Just like the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness are their own race. The race is not the Triple Crown, that is just an end result of a near impossible feat.

The better comparison that I read yesterday is that in golf, sometimes a player is so good that they win a grand slam (all major tournaments in a calendar year). They have to do this against inconsistent competition, as some people only qualify for certain events. Is it unfair? Should people who don't qualify for one golf tournament not be allowed to play in another? or what about people who are injured briefly? Or simply don't want to?

The Belmont is its own race. The aim of winning the Belmont is to win the Belmont. It just so happens that this time around the Triple Crown was a possibility. People shouldn't try to accommodate that possibility, IMO.

Let exceptional horses make history, lets not try to alter a sport to create those exceptional horses

anyway: one of my favourite moments in sports history: the Secretariat's Belmont win (landing his Triple Crown, and breaking Belmont track records that hold to this day)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let exceptional horses make history, lets not try to alter a sport to create those exceptional horses

Bingo.

Secretariat, Affirmed and the other Triple Crown winners had to cope with the same situation and they did.

I think Coburn should have listened to his trainer and simply apologized the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were only 3 horses from the Kentucky Derby in the Belmont. If we follow his reasoning, there would be only 3 horses in Belmont. Kind of silly to have only 3 horses in a horse race.

Like others say, the Belmont is a race upon itself. There is a big jackpot and other horse owners want a share of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were only 3 horses from the Kentucky Derby in the Belmont. If we follow his reasoning, there would be only 3 horses in Belmont. Kind of silly to have only 3 horses in a horse race.

Like others say, the Belmont is a race upon itself. There is a big jackpot and other horse owners want a share of it.

Actually, there were only 4 horses running against Secretariat. This race had a record 11 horses in it - so it actually was a lot tougher in that respect. I'm thinking that the horses entering the Belmont need to also have run in recent races to qualify, making it an even playing field. I'm a race fan and even Hastings has stipulations - something could be put into place.

The Belmont is a race in itself, but there are several races on a card. I tend to kind of agree...if you saw how beat up CC was after this race, it somehow doesn't seem fair to put a fresh horse in the running for a Triple Crown race. Just how I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there were only 4 horses running against Secretariat. This race had a record 11 horses in it - so it actually was a lot tougher in that respect. I'm thinking that the horses entering the Belmont need to also have run in recent races to qualify, making it an even playing field. I'm a race fan and even Hastings has stipulations - something could be put into place.

The Belmont is a race in itself, but there are several races on a card. I tend to kind of agree...if you saw how beat up CC was after this race, it somehow doesn't seem fair to put a fresh horse in the running for a Triple Crown race. Just how I feel.

I just don't buy it, Deb. Horses competing for the English triple crown have HUGE gaps and periods of rest, and that award was won in 1970, and then 1933 or something. They just don't win it.

In the 1970s, where there were three American triple crown winners, the horses had far less rest than they do now. Smaller competition pool, sure, but they ran more, and the winners had better times than those today. These are horses at the end of the day, and I just don't buy that they need a month of rest in order to run a mile.

And CC looked beat up because he had a nasty gash on his foot, or maybe he just wasn't that good. Or maybe it's because Tonalist had 23 days of rest and CC only had, what, 14? idk, just seems like an excuse to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...