[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Main Board ]

This was whining. Their complaint was that the winning horse

Posted by in the Belmont hadn't competed in the Derby or the Preakness. sm on Sun, Jun 08 2014 at 09:22 AM CDT:

In Reply to: Maybe the rules really are unfair. Nothing unfair is ever changed posted by until someone takes a stand about it. It isn't always whining. on Sun, Jun 08 2014 at 08:58 AM CDT:

They felt this gave an unfair advantage because their horse was tired from the previous races, and they wanted horses banned from the Triple Crown races unless they raced in all three races. That is utter and complete bovine excrement. People race horses to win races, and they decide what races to enter horses in based on their condition, training, and perceived chances. There is absolutely no grounds for requiring any owner enter or not enter a horse in any race. Never has been and never should be.

The reason Triple Crown winners are rare is that it takes both good luck and great stamina to win all three races, particularly as the last is a mile and half compared to the mile and a quarter and mile and three sixteenths of the earlier two.

What they're whining about is that their horse should have been given an advantage to help it win the Triple Crown that no horse in history has ever been given. Nonsense. It you don't win it on the same terms it's always been won on, you don't really have a Triple Crown winner. You have a very good racehorse that, like many other very good race horses in history, simply didn't/couldn't win all 3 races of the Triple Crown against all comers entered in all the races.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Main Board ]