Steve Coburn's comments after losing the Belmont

[Ponyplusaninch]

[QUOTE=grits;7613383]
Coburn’s rant was graceless and a shame (and so was NBC’s) - especially in the wake of so much graciousness over the past weeks. But hubby, not usually a sentimental person, pointed out that Coburn’s anger seemed to come from stress over genuine love for the horse and anxiety over the toll that the TC ordeal had taken on him.

That I can understand.[/QUOTE]

This entirely… I think Coburn came off as a twat after his rant, but it was out of passion for the horse. Had it been another day in a calmer context, what he says does bear some thinking about. I’m hoping (but not holding my breath) he might release another statement or interview apologizing for his lashing out in the heat of the moment and that he’d like the chance to discuss his concerns regarding the TC in a more rational state of mind.

[Lynnwood]

Coburn was just acting off the cuff in the heat of the moment. He’s not used to public eye and hopefully he will see himself and learn to say his peace with a little more decorum.

As for CC he didn’t get beat by fresh horses. He ran a mile and half on a quarter grab. Who knows how much of a stinger it was and every horse reacts to pain differently. I think he finished game and still trying and that speaks a lot to his heart. Hope we get to see him back racing in the fall.

[furlong47]

[QUOTE=Bristol Bay;7613281]
If the Triple Crown is indeed a media construct, it’s a popular one. Everyone agrees it would be good for the sport if more horses won it. So why not make it a series of races as many have suggested?

In other sports, rules are changed all the time to avoid injuries or to increase scoring. Hockey changed the rules so there can only be one player defending the area in front of the net. More goals are scored as a result. Basketball had already made a similar adjustment. Baseball lowered the mound and widened the strike zone. All of these tweaks were to make the games more fan-friendly, as my husband put it.

So, okay, people are hungry for a Triple Crown horse. Make it fair so a good horse has a better chance.

Racing history and tradition haven’t kept tracks from closing.[/QUOTE]

Changing a game so it scores differently or has more action affects all teams equally, as they all must play under the same new rules.

Changing the format of the Triple Crown, IMO, cheapens the prize. Any horse that wins after will not be able to be compared to the winners of the past, because they won’t have played by the same rules. War Admiral, Citation, Secretariat, Affirmed, and all the rest had to beat everyone including the new comers in all three races. Just because no one has won recently is no reason to water it down and make it easier. In fact, I feel it reeks of the society we now live in where every kid gets a trophy and we have a big group hug and nobody ever has to feel defeat. We have been within a head and a nose of a Triple Crown in the past 20 years, and slightly less close several other times. It will come.

[Brooklyncowgirl]

I was at Belmont today and met a guy who walked through the gate right ahead of Steve Coburn. They talked while going through security–yes apparently the owners of the favorite had to be wanded and searched–or maybe they didn’t make a big deal of who they were. At any rate my new pal Mike said he seemed like the nicest guy in the world–oh and he had a picture of him with Coburn and his wife to prove it in case you’re thinking he was making it all up. At any rate Steve Coburn seems like the sort of extroverted person who has no filter and sometimes says things he shouldn’t. Frankly, I’d rather have owners in the sport who act like human beings than some of the soulless robots of owners and trainers you see all to often. Still, good sportsmanship is good sportsmanship. Congratulate the winner first–then, when things have cooled down–get on your soapbox.

[saratoga]

He was definitely entertaining…my niece, who is a big fan of people behaving stupidly loved it and it was the first thing she mentioned when I asked her if she had watched the race lol
I can see how people can think its “unfair” but it was always about being able to win these 3 classic stand alone races. I liked the bonus that Visa offered in the 80sfor the horse who ran in all 3 races and accrued the most points. But then, I wouldn’t want to see people encouraged to entering horses who were not suitable for the distance or too tired or not sound, etc. Its actually pretty incredible when you think about it that there are even a handful of horses nowadays who make all the races…the distances and the spacing of the races are so completely opposite of what most horses are even capable of now…the breeding for precocious sprinters instead of horses with stamina and longevity, and perhaps the dehydration from the lasix requiring more recovery time between races.

[Vindicated]

[QUOTE=Lauruffian;7613380]
Point of clarification: Charismatic broke down just past the wire, not before it.[/QUOTE]

I believe, you need to go watch that race on YouTube. He broke down before the wire-was not pulled up until after…

[Linny]

If they didn’t let new runners join the fray after the Derby, the TC would be won about 2 out of 3 years. The Derby would be a 20 horse field and, just like now, very few of them would return. Trainers don’t want to run back in 2 weeks and once they can’t win the TC, many would just pack it in and point for summer races like the Haskell and Travers if the Belmont were not an option.
By the time the Belmont came around, the field would usually be about 3 horses and barring a disaster, the TC would be won.

It would cheapen the accomplishment. NYRA would hate seeing the Belmont so reduced. Every other Derby winner has had to take on new rivals in subsequent legs. I didn’t hear him crying about “new shooters” after his win in MD.

Coburn was lucky. He bred a cheap mare to a cheap stallion and got a good colt. He got a huge bit of luck when the top 3 or 4 colts were sidelined over the winter. Most of the Derby colts were not that good and Tonalist and Commissioner were well prepared by good horsemen. Yes, they were fresh but to win the TC you have to take on fresh horses and beat them.
Rather than ranting, maybe he should be thankful that he wasn’t at Bay Meadows hoping that his son of Lucky Pulpit can win a little “Cal Bred A/other than” that goes right after the Belmont in NY. Realistically, that would have been a more likely outcome for CChrome than looking to sweep the TC.

[Linny]

Espinoza stopped riding about 6 strides from the wire and stood up with 2 strides left. When superfectas mean betting to fourth and when a lot of prize money is on the line, he should be more careful.

[grayarabs]

Looking at the Matterhorn/Chrome photo - am trying to figure out what phase of the canter/gallop Chrome was in.

Is there a phase when all four hooves are on the ground/close to ground level?
And just out of the gate?

It almost looks like left lead with the RF nailed to the dirt.

[cloudyandcallie]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;7613225]
That’s not true. There were eleven horses in War Emblem’s try. In fact, the fields for horses with the first two legs seem to vary between nine and eleven. If the trainers think a horse can be beat, there will be more entries. They aren’t going to run if they don’t think they have a chance at the money.

There have always been new shooters in the American Triple Crown races. It’s the schedule that takes superhorses to get all three.[/QUOTE]

I agree with Viney. It takes a great horse and good luck to win the Crown. The 3 match races, in essence, between Affirmed and Alydar were great. And while I loved Spectacular Bid, his “walkover” in the Belmont turned out to be a losing event. Only a few horses showed up to contest against The Bid. Slew was great, but the Affirmed vs. Alydar duels cannot be beat. And fresh horses run in all of the 3 races. To be a Triple Crown winner, you have to have strength and stamina and be able to overcome racing bad luck.

I think the owner’s comment was classless. The jockey made bad decisions on Chrome. He might not be a distance runner. But to disparage the horses who came into the Belmont without running in the Derby or Preakness is totally classless.

[Anne_FS]

[QUOTE=Bristol Bay;7613281]
Everyone agrees it would be good for the sport if more horses won it.
…

Make it fair so a good horse has a better chance.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? No, everyone does not think it would be better. If there had been 3 horses every decade winning the TC like back in the 70’s, it wouldn’t be nearly as special, wouldn’t get nearly the press coverage, wouldn’t have nearly the attendance and betting.

And “make it fair”? Make it fair??? It IS fair.

[PiedPiper]

Coburn just reiterated his comments on the Today show so any heat of the moment unfiltered thoughts isn’t holding up. He stands by his coward comment and changing how things are run.

I really liked CC but I greatly appreciate the rules and allowances for the race to the Triple Crown. Changing it isn’t the answer. There are many other elements we should be focusing on. To win it is SUPPOSED to be extraordinary. That is the point. CC just wasn’t it that day. That is okay.

[Madeline]

[QUOTE=betonbill;7613199]
It was mentioned that Secretariat ran against 4 horses in the Belmont. Someone ran a column before the Belmont citing the number of horses in each Triple Crown winner’s field and they consistently ran well below the 10 that ran today. [/QUOTE]

Maybe it’s as simple as that there were 9 trainers who thought (correctly) that CC wasn’t good for a mile and a half. Seattle Slew ran against 6 because, well, where did Billy Turner come from and who thinks a cheap, crooked yearling is going to win the Belmont,? They were wrong, of course…

[JanM]

Because CC didn’t win, maybe after this round of interviews Coburn will shut up, and go away. Can you imagine how awful he would have been as a part owner of the TC champ? He never would have gone away. I’m sure he was booked a few days ago for the morning shows, so maybe they won’t want him again, since he’s no longer an breaking story. He can’t go far enough from my TV screen, and if I never hear him again I’ll be happy. What a total jerk he turned out to be.

[Dewey]

[QUOTE=Foxtrot’s;7613202]
I don’t think Coburn is a jerk -I sympathize with him saying what he thought in the heat of the moment after all the hype of the past weeks.

Did you notice the wife trying to calm him down!

Hockey players are media savvy and have learned to play the party line with their scripted comments just for this reason. Jockeys, too, as they have to be able not to burn their bridges since they never know who they will be riding for next.[/QUOTE]

It’s not just hockey players–it’s pro athletes in general. It’s a survival technique. Outspoken (to a reckless degree) players like Curt Schilling, Terrell Owens, or Shaquille O’Neal will get themselves in trouble. On the other hand, they are colorful and fun for the fans to talk about, while an interview with someone like Derek Jeter is so scripted you can almost predict what he is going to say–he is a master of what I call “jock speak.” Even his own fans wish he would sometimes be a little more open and honest. But he plays in New York and what he says will always be front-page news, so he can’t afford it, so he comes across as robotic.

I sympathize with Steve Coburn, but he absolutely should not have made these comments in a public interview, especially right after the race when he should have been congratulating the winner. He came across as bitter and unsportsmanlike and left a bad final impression after a wonderful Triple Crown run with California Chrome. His feelings may be somewhat justified, but his rant just makes me think his parents didn’t raise him right. In three minutes, he undid all the goodwill he had raised for the “little guys” in racing.

You know, it makes me think he had never thought about what might happen if CC lost the race. He seemed totally unprepared.

[spotted_draft_x_fill]

Absolutely nothing has changed in the last 100+ years in regards to all 3 races, the TC, horses entered, and even with interviewing the connections of the heavy favorite before the winner. The only difference is for the first time we have a crybaby sore loser for an owner. Nothing should change and I hope the racing commission does not change anything because of gis rant. If he’sgoing to cry that much, he needs to sell off his ownership, give up his owner’s license and go home. Racing has enough problems and we don’t need someone like him.

[can_t_re]

I was going to give Coburn a bye as well, thinking he would be apologizing this AM or at least congratulating the winner. Clearly that’s not going to happen. I do believe he never thought CC would lose but Coburn needs to learn how to lose graciously. I don’t think they should or will change the way horses are entered in the TC races
My two thoughts on the race, because as I was watching I kept say “oh, sh!t, oh sh!t”, because CC just didn’t look like he was in it to win it. I don’t know how tired he was but the video of him walking after the race shows a sore horse.
My other thought is: does anyone else think CC was hit a bit much coming into the stretch? I know how badly Victor wanted to win, but it did seem extreme to me.

[Faircourt]

So glad to see so many horse people standing by the sanctity of the Triple Crown. My Facebook feed us filled with people agreeing with Coburn because they don’t understand the sport. However, one of my friends who worked at the track in the '80’s claims the Belmont had trouble filling the card for the race so they changed the rules to allow non qualifiers and non runners of the other 2 races to run. Does anyone know anything about when this change was made? I can’t find a thing about it in any of my Internet research. Was there at some point more rules about who could run in the Belmont?

[Drvmb1ggl3]

[QUOTE=Faircourt;7613609]
So glad to see so many horse people standing by the sanctity of the Triple Crown. My Facebook feed us filled with people agreeing with Coburn because they don’t understand the sport. However, one of my friends who worked at the track in the '80’s claims the Belmont had trouble filling the card for the race so they changed the rules to allow non qualifiers and non runners of the other 2 races to run. Does anyone know anything about when this change was made? I can’t find a thing about it in any of my Internet research. Was there at some point more rules about who could run in the Belmont?[/QUOTE]

No, there was never any “rules”.
You paid your entry fee and entered your 3yo. That was it.

[ridingagain]

Steve Coburn is a classless ass who lives up to the Dumb Ass Partners name. I’m glad he did not win the Triple Crown because we would never stop hearing from him. Hopefully, he has had his 15 minutes of fame and will go away.

CC is a nice horse, but is not in the same league as the other Triple Crown winners. There is a reason it is so tough to win and I hope they don’t change the rules to cheapen it. You have to be an extraordinary horse and also have some luck to win the TC.

CC had quite a bit of luck - good post positions, good track conditions (can you imagine the whine if it had rained and the track were muddy) and the rules were changed so the horse could wear his nasal strip. Remember Coburn threatened to not run if that weren’t changed. Jockey did a fine job, he just didn’t have enough horse. I doubt the injury he sustained played a very big part in the loss.

I do feel sorry for the other connections for CC… the trainer, groom, jockey. Anybody know what the other owner (who owns 70% BTW) had to say. I didn’t even see him after the race on TV. Hopefully he was more gracious.

As other people have said, I’m just glad everyone came home safely.