I agree with a lot of what you said in your post…but jeez, the horse was likely just tired and napping, no?
Silky
[QUOTE=Glimmerglass;3274440]
For what it is worth I tend to concur with a variation of this theory more then most.
You can save face far more easily with a DNF then making an attempt at taking atleast 8th out of 9 starters for a race his connections - from the jock to the owners to the trainers - over sold as being ‘a done deal’. What they’ve almost brilliantly done is let everyone guess what they think happened.
He was not in distress and I see zero reason for BB to not have officially been listed as finished 9th. The DNF gives a nice excuse of something being wrong - and that wrong was he bounced which is fine for a horse that over his 5 prior races just kept getting better and better.
It happens all the time that horses bounce and there is no shame in that from my view. Just don’t try and sell the story as being effectively ‘we couldn’t win so we forced a DNF’.
I’m no fan of the false prophet Smarty Jones (a semi-decent horse but not a Hall of Famer, despite Randy Moss’ suggestion on ESPN/ABC Saturday) but I’ll give him props that at least he ran as hard as he could at the Belmont and did just barely get beat.
By comparison Big Brown is a little like Silky Sullivan’s 1958 Kentucky Derby: everyone expected that amazing speed ball who captured the attention of a nation to appear on cue as always, but didn’t. It does not mean that his wins were bogus or worthy of scorn. It just meant that you can’t keep digging into that bag of miracles time and time again and not pull out a rotten egg at least once.[/QUOTE]
I agree about BB and Silky Sullivan, remember the split screen camera, so cool in its day?
my question is this…what if someone had a lot of $ on the field horses? I mean, it’s not out of the question. by not coming in first, BB made a lot of money for a lot of people, and he himself was bet down so low. I am just wondering. would the fighting his jockey apply to being held back so he couldn’t run? Don’t flame, but it is a thought.
[QUOTE=cloudyandcallie;3274461]
I agree about BB and Silky Sullivan, remember the split screen camera, so cool in its day?
my question is this…what if someone had a lot of $ on the field horses? I mean, it’s not out of the question. by not coming in first, BB made a lot of money for a lot of people, and he himself was bet down so low. I am just wondering. would the fighting his jockey apply to being held back so he couldn’t run? Don’t flame, but it is a thought.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know, but am thinking whomever would have to have more money than God (I know, God doesn’t actually have money.) to get a jockey to give up a chance of being the first jockey in 30 years to ride a Triple Crown winner AND let his son miss out on seeing his dad win the Triple Crown before said son goes blind. But who knows?
[QUOTE=loriandlobo;3274513]
I don’t know, but am thinking whomever would have to have more money than God (I know, God doesn’t actually have money.) to get a jockey to give up a chance of being the first jockey in 30 years to ride a Triple Crown winner AND let his son miss out on seeing his dad win the Triple Crown before said son goes blind. But who knows?;)[/QUOTE]
No way, didnt happen, forget that theory.
[QUOTE=Acertainsmile;3274516]
No way, didnt happen, forget that theory.[/QUOTE]
Exactly!!!
So what news outlet wins for the best headline?
As cited before the, the New York Post had the great headline Smarty Groans when he lost the Belmont (‘groans’ instead of ‘jones’, in case it wasn’t obvious). In 2008 with Big Brown’s bomb there were others.
“Needing full power, Big Brown had a big brownout” - Sporting News
“Triple Frown” - NY Post, the actual cover was Big Brown Bomb
“Big Brown fails to deliver” - Schenectady Gazette (NY)
“Big Brown can’t deliver the goods in Belmont Stakes” - LA Times
and finally someone to recognize the winner: "Who’s Da’ man? - Louisville Courier-Journal
“Big Brown fails to deliver” - Schenectady Gazette (NY)
Love it!
“Big Brown overhyped.”
As expected the hype was good for ABC Sports and NYRA with television ratings. A true shame is how few people in person and on tv watched the race last year which was fantastic and delivered your money’s worth.
Note the numbers are not final - these are just the overnight measurements
Belmont Overnight TV Ratings Soar
Updated: June 8, 2008
from ABC
Big Brown’s failed quest for a coveted Triple Crown drew in the television viewers.
[b]The Belmont Stakes (gr. I) broadcast on ABC from 6:15-7:15 p.m. EDT delivered a 10.5 overnight metered market rating, up 169% from last year’s race (3.9).
The Belmont race coverage also topped the rating of this year’s Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (gr. I) by 11% (9.5), and the Preakness Stakes (gr. I) by 64% (6.4).[/b]
The pre-race coverage, from 5-5:30 p.m., earned a 4.5 rating, 150% higher than last year (1.8).
Most if not all people respect the views of Dr. Larry Bramlage - here was his comments on two suggested culprits by some: San Diego Union Tribune “Triple Crown favorite fails to fire as long shot wins”
There will be speculation that the removal from a medical regimen that included legal administration of the steroid Winstrol in April, and the removal from a “vitamin jug” of supplements much more recently, may have had an effect.
[b]“I doubt if that (steroid use) comes up to be the answer,” Bramlage said. “Because it’s not that kind of situation where it’s going to be a stimulant for him. The anabolic steroids keeps him eating and keeps him happy and keeps him aggressive, all of which he showed all week long.
“So I kind of doubt it.” [/b]
There will be speculation about the small crack in the left front hoof that was patched on the eve of the race. Preliminary inspection didn’t show any such indication.
But what would have been called, on any other occasion, a horse “throwing in a clunker,” doesn’t figure to be easily dismissed, or solved.
Here is what I think happened. He’s a smart horse on a very hot day that’s been wrestled for 1/4 mile. So he said “hoof you” to Kent, who panicked and pulled him up.
I really think it’s that simple.
Nancy
Nancy has a point. Not to ever second guess KD, it is conceivable that in this case, he might have let him out a little earlier, especially if one bases it on the belief that he’s the strongest entry of the group by far. According to a vet I know who’s worked on BB in the past, it is very true that the horse historically has NOT liked or worked well in high heat and he believes that to be a major factor of sorts. I work with several who are the same - simply, they’re not hot weather horses. Some don’t care or are so used to relentless KY heat (as an example). The high heat and humidity happened overnight, too, with no chance for the horses to acclimate. But to get back to Nancy, I think that’s possible too however you can also say he was ridden that way previously and more than prevailed. Glimmerglass is right, the horse is not a machine, and it had an off day regardless of the reasons. He has a right to that. Also the pressures were immense and perhaps it was palpable to him. TB’s are so incredibly sensitive and keen.
I think there will be endless speculation, most understandably so; look the TC is something that should NOT be easily won, should be saved for the “greats,” to use that oft-cited word, but I also think that after 30 dry years it is plain as day that we are just not breeding horses that can do it anymore.
[QUOTE=hessy35;3273258]
Yes, what you said!!! I agree. And it really is a shame. After going back and watching the race a few times I see confusion in BB. He just seems frustrated and confused out there. Like he was getting mixed signals. Oh well… onto next year… :([/QUOTE]
I also agree with both of you. KD isn’t a hero to me. If he had really thought there was something wrong he would have pulled BB up to a stop and then checked him. He did neither.
[QUOTE=Iride;3275424]
I think there will be endless speculation, most understandably so; look the TC is something that should NOT be easily won, should be saved for the “greats,” to use that oft-cited word, but I also think that after 30 dry years it is plain as day that we are just not breeding horses that can do it anymore.[/QUOTE]
Bingo
So from 1948 to 1973 was it plain as day that they were not breeding horses that could do it either?
This TC drought is statistically not much greater than that one, and the 50’s and 60’s are considered part of the “Golden Era” of racing.
When a good enough horse comes along and all the stars align (quality of competitors, right training descisions, and racing luck etc etc) then it will happen again. It has nothing to do with breeding.
Iride, agreed. It just makes the greats even greater, IMHO.
Nancy
Call me middle class, but I don’t see why so many people are getting so offended over syndicated horses.
How do you expect some regular joe making say - $100K per year or less - any chance of ownership in a race horse?
We can’t all have made or inherited millions of dollars. Some of us need to band together for race horse ownership. That, or just own some claiming clunker at some schlocky track.
Maybe BB’s owners seem too slick, but do people also feel that way about the other LLC structures like Team Valor? I think they’re great - and a way for a lot more people to be involved. Which just HAS to be good for the long term viability of the sport.
I doubt you will find many people invloved in racing who are opposed to syndicates/partnerships. Most would agree that they are great for racing and getting people involved in the sport. Motivator who won the Derby a few years ago was owned by a syndicate of 280 odd people (most of whom tried to cram into the winners cirlce at Epsom!!).
People do seem to have suspect view of IEAH, because of the charachters invovled and their attitude and approach. Nothing against syndicates.
:lol:
