What do people think about Steve Colburns tirade, after he guaranteed a Triple Crown? He knew the competition, and their recent history BEFORE the race, didnt he? There is a reason why only 11 horses have managed the feat in 100 years. His contention that a horse must race in all 3 legs is senseless. First of all they had to install criteria, and limit the number of entries in the Derby to 20, because a few years back there was a real issue of exceeding that number because of the prestige, when owners wanted their horse to run, when they really had no legitimate chance to win, let alone get a piece of the purse. Then there are some owners who have no intention to run in the Belmont (no matter how good they may run in the Derby), or some owners, who because of their breeding, may point to the Belmont, without running in the Derby. I would like to see some statistics on the number of horses who run in all 3 legs, and in recent years it is decreasing, because of the schedule, even before this year. If we were to consider Colburns proposal, I suspect that we would start with 20 for the Derby, then if the horse had to qualify for the Preakness, there would be a field of 10-11, . . . maybe! Then, the field (of the remaining 10-11) for the Belmont would be about 5-6. If you were to ask Colburn today if his horse had still won the Derby, but ran up the track in the Preakness, would he still run in the Belmont, what would be his answer?
Posted on: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 13:13:40 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015