California Chrome goes for the Triple Crown

He'll still stud for a shit ton of money, but the aura of the first TC winner in almost 40 years would've been insane. Regular Derby winners can get $150,000 per stud (and get 75 shots at a foal per year) and stud fees in the mid 2000s were $500,000 for great horses. Chrome isn't from a great bloodline, but it would be hard to resist the only living TC winner.

The owners will be just fine. But there's no doubt they missed out on a lot of extra money today. I can't imagine he'll race again.

 

Two of my favorite comments:

Peter Botte @PeterBotte · 4h

If California Chrome wins the Triple Crown, Mike Trout still deserves the MVP.



Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 24m

The owner of California Gold just made a jerk (fool) out of himself. Just smile and congrat the winner. His wife was visibly embarrassed!

 

I don't know why people are so upset that Coburn spoke his mind. He wasn't one of those phony-ass aristocrats when he brought California Chrome to the Derby and he's not now. He's a regular guy who was pissed about losing the Triple Crown and said so.

Given that this is a board for journalists, I'm somewhat surprised at the reaction here -- I thought we wanted people to offer genuine emotion, not the phony baloney BS we usually get.

Does he sound like a sore loser? Many will say so.

But he's half of an ownership group called Dumb Ass Partners. What did anyone expect?

 

Never hurts to not overestimate the audience.

 

I can't speak for all but where did people claim to be upset because he voiced a raw/honest opinion?

I sure as hell didn't. I called him a whining loser and I did so because that label fit. Speaking one's mind doesn't make one correct or mature or classy.

I have no use for people who enter into a system and, after failing to get the results for which they hoped, immediately point the finger of blame at the system.

I've got a message for the whiner, stolen from Tom Hanks' character in A League of Their Own:

"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."

 

The co-owners' "stable" -- which includes exactly one -- one Kentucky Derby-, Preakness-winning horse -- is named not in derisive reference to any actual lack of smarts or reflectiveness on Coburn's part, but is intended as a fun, self-deprecating reminder/nod to a friend who supposedly called them "dumb asses" when they bought California Chrome's mother, Love The Chase, for $8,000, had her bred for $,2500, and hoped/expected to successfully jump into the racing business by, yes, winning the Triple Crown.

 

I'm aware of the back story.

My point was, when you're dealing with a horse owner capable of seeing the humor in somebody calling him a "dumbass," you shouldn't be surprised that he's not some robot with a $5,000 suit and impeccable media training.

NBC stuck a hot mic in his face right after a crushing defeat, hoping that Coburn would lose his shit, and he cooperated.

Obviously many are going to disagree, but I'm glad Coburn spoke his mind. There's already enough phoniness in the world.

 

I suppose you think it's more "classy" to do what most horse owners would've done in that situation -- offer some lame platitude on camera, then piss and moan as soon as the TV people had moved on.

Coburn thought the owners of the three horses that beat Chrome were chicken-shit and said so. I don't have to agree with him to respect the fact that he didn't act like some spit-shined asshole.

 

Do they still do that challenge thing where they award points in each race and the horse that finishes with the most points after the three races wins a nice payday? Seems that might encourage more horses to do all three.

It is worth noting that when Secretariat crushed the Belmont, there where only four other horses in the race. And then he went and won the Arlington Stakes three weeks after that.

 

My paper had a list of 12 horses before CC who lost the Belmont after winning the first two - although the belmontstakes.com site says there are 16, as well as 3 who didn't run in the Belmont. Of the 12 in the paper's list, 3 were beaten by horses that had run in the first two legs, 4 did the Derby and Belmont, 1 did the Preakness and Belmont and 4 of the Belmont winners were running for the first time.

I'm way too lazy to look up the fields of the Belmonts where a Triple Crown was won to see if and how many horses in those fields were making their first Triple Crown starts, but I'm guessing that those winners did beat at least some fresh horses.

 

I think this tweet sums it up pretty well regarding the sportswriterlys.

@curtisbeast "Sore loser" = great copy. No one gets a column if he says, "Give credit to Tonalist..."

 

I don't see the point in racing the same bunch of horses for three races in a row.

OK, you beat those, now see if you can beat these. That's what makes it hard.