OGTEleven

Your general point is correct but I think these two races are the wrong example to make that point. Secretariat's race was simply the best horse race ever run (I'd argue it is the greatest performance in a single event in the history of sports). AP's time was very strong precisely because he wasn't pushed early. Materiality (who was supposed to do the pushing) was not up to the task. Is it possible that AP could have run a 109-4 in the opening 6 furlongs and continued to keep that pace? The best I can do is say it's not impossible. And the only reason I can say that is because Secretariat did it. Without the 1973 Belmont as a reference (and no race before it or since it), every racing fan would say it was simply impossible. It is far more likely that he'd falter after running 109-4 than he would having run 113-2. What AP did Saturday was great. It was great for the sport and I hope it brings interest back (I also hope to see him at Saratoga this year or next). Ending a 37 year drought is MORE than what Secretariat did. AP's accomplishment should be lauded. Can we say he's not the next Secretariat? I suppose not. He could go on to even greater things. AP did something no horse has done in 37 years but there are still a lot of things he has not done. He has not gotten into a speed duel and sustained a late challenge. He may have to do that some day this fall. He may rise to that challenge. He may falter. Heck, even Secretariat's record wasn't perfect. He has proven he can sit off the pace and make a move to the lead. This is a big plus. In addition to winning the Triple Crown, being horse of the year and champion 3YO (both of which AP will probably be), do you know what else Secretariat was in 1973? Champion grass horse. He had two losses after the Belmont and won four races, including a course record on Belmont's grass and winning in the Canadian International. I'll go out on a limb and guess that AP won't be the champion grass horse this year. Secretariat jumped right into the fire against older horses. Odds are that AP's next race or two will be against 3YOs and that he'll enter the Breeder's Cup as his first race against older horses or possibly his second. That's fine and he may prove to be an all time great beyond just the Triple Crown. I hope he does. But the two Belmont's are not comparable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNHJkz5K6uk

These guys are so snubbed that they aren't even on the snubbed list.

Martina McBride has a great voice. Check out her "God Bless America" on Youtube from the Rose Parade. Emmylou Harris in another. For someone lesser known I'll go with Ruth Moody.

All of mine are from Mark Knopfler. "Too poor to be wasteful with pity or time." "You can fall for chains of silver, you can fall for chains of gold, you can fall for pretty strangers and the promises they hold." "Criss-crossed On his back Scars from his daddy Like slavery tracks The second-last child Was the second-last king Never again was it the same In the ring"

I will throw in two from songs that are not too well known. And I will waste my heart on fear no more I will find a secret bell and make it ring And let the rest be washed up on the shore They can't be tamed, these wilder things No they can't be tamed, these wilder things You’re a light in the dark, a beacon of hope and strong as a sea boat, strong as a rope And the vagabond wind, whispers over the bay and the songs and the laughter, are carried away in the sky

Not that famous a song but in honor of 9/11 I will submit "If This is Goodbye" by Mark Knopfler and Emmylou Harris. "My famous last words are laying around in tatters, sounding absurd, whatever I try." the last line is also brilliant: "My famous last words could never tell the story, spinning unheard in the dark of the sky, but I love you and this is our glory, if this is goodbye, if this is goodbye."

It is so hard to believe it was that long ago. It had an such a lasting impact on America on all of us as individuals. The song in my link was written about the people making calls from the towers or plane(s) to say goodbye because they knew their fate. Those stories and recorded calls, while incredibly sad to hear, also helped me realize the almost universal desire of all of us to say things that too often remain unsaid.

I like Henricksen too. i also like a guy named Peter Stormare who I think is very underrated and Peter Sarsgaard who I have seen do some very good work along with having some bad roles. Neither of those guys fit any of the characters described.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/lou-gehrig-speech-75th-anniversary-mlb-new-york-yankees It's a baseball player with a terrible disease giving a speech, but it exemplifies so many things about America. The will and determination to carry on, the freedom to do what you love and the appreciation of what others have done to allow that freedom to you. The humility to realize that despite whatever obstacle is in front of you, there is still much you have. Although this was about one loved person, it says a lot about what the American system has afforded us all.

He is my all time favorite player. He took the hardest task in sports and made it look so easy. He was always looking for ways to improve, even after establishing himself as an all time great. He was so consistent and confident, and never seemed arrogant. I feel privileged just to have been able to watch his whole career. His lifetime average facing Greg Maddux was .415 and Maddux never struck him out. Link is to a cool audio. http://blogs.marketw...oogle_news_blog

I strongly suspect that Clement mapped out his strategy for getting Tonalist back to the races long before the Kentucky Derby was run. I'm equally convinced he developed this strategy in line with what he thought was best for the horse's health and provided the most likely set of positive outcomes (i.e.. Running well in the Peter Pan and winning the Belmont). It is silly to expect him to adjust his plans after watching the Kentucky Derby so he could be perceived to be more fair in the eyes of some crazy owner of a different horse. I don't dispute that but I fail to see how it relates to Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed. I think the Belmont actually serves as a tool to demonstrate the harm that has been done to the breed by the last few decades of breeding focused on speed. I don't think it is the Belmont that needs to change, but the breeding. If you carry your theory forward, the Breeder's Cup Dirt mile will be the most prestigious race in America in 25 years. I don't want to see that happen. The pendulum can swing back fairly easily by importing a prominent European sire or two (or 20) over here. I don't see it happening yet though. Losing Animal Kingdom as a sire to Australia was a big blow. I think Baffert could be right about SC and think Smarty Jones' jockey made an error in moving too soon as well. I'm confident there will be another TC winner. You spoke about Rachel's baby the other day. I just saw an article about Cozmic One (another stupid name) who is Zenyatta's baby. He just got sent to Shireffs at Belmont. If they race each other it should be fun but I don't see them a some sort of super horses on mom alone. There is always a lot to prove. As for this year's 3 year olds I see them as an ok crop. It will be interesting to see Honor Code, Top Billing and Shared Belief when they really get a race or two under their belts. I like Tonalist and Medal Count moving forward but the one I think could be the most interesting if and when he matures is Bobby's Kitten. He could be anything. No guarantees at all but his upside is really high.

He had not run since Feb 22. Is a prep race not reasonable before throwing a horse into a Triple Crown race? Do you really think this was an evil plan to thwart California Chrome who had only won the Derby at this point? A lot has changed over the years. If Espinoza had said Chrome would had faced a more difficult trail than Secretariat, I could buy that (maybe), but he said it would prove Chrome was the greatest horse of all time. Evidently he is not aware of Secretariat's accomplishments post Triple Crown, or hasn't heard of John Henry, Forego, Kelso, Count Fleet or many others? Even if he had won Saturday, I could probably think of 50 better horses than his record so far without having to think hard. If he is the greatest of all time I look forward to him easily dispatching Palace Malice and Wise Dan and others later this year. That should be awesome. I hope he goes off 1-9. There are races after the Belmont. You weren't but you were? Agreed on the overall quality of the horses in 1982 and even on the status of Cielo in the bigger picture, but the question is whether or not it was somehow unfair that he ran in the Belmont. It wasn't. In fact he ran against what was there in 1982, which included both the Derby and Preakness winners plus the supposed super horse Linkage. 1982 had what it had. There wasn't some big horse missing from that field was there? Runaway Groom? The race was weak only because 1982 was weak. It had all the 1982 players. Meaningless Belmont? I don't think overblown is the right word for the Triple Crown. I just recognize it for what it is and isn't. It would still be an important achievement and will be again when it is won again. It could have easily been won on several occasions since the last time. I am 95% convinced that if Easy Goer and Sunday Silence were born a year apart they would have both won. When it is won, I will enjoy all of the hoopla like everyone else, but also realize that the winner will likely be very challenged against older horses in the fall of his 3 year old year. The overblown part of the TC is that it is for 3 year olds. Whoever wins will be deemed the greatest ever by a media with the attention span of a small group of gnats and they will all ask what is wrong when the horse doesn't sweep everything that fall. I hope the next winner is the greatest of all time but I doubt he will be. I'd like to see a horse win the Triple Crown. I would have liked to see Chrome do it. But to win a watered down version by eliminating competitors would have stripped a huge portion of the accomplishment. The Derby is by far the most hyped race of the year and I enjoy that as much as the next guy, but all three races have great tradition and all have their important place in history. I would not go as far as you did in ranking the Derby so far ahead of the other two. It certainly gets some of that status, but all three are Grade 1's and very important. The Derby definitely benefits from being first on the calendar. As a grouping the Triple Crown obviously has its history. IMO, it is one that should not be watered down so that we can get some false thrill. I also think the lack of a TC winner demonstrates the poor judgement behind the industry in general with all the speed breeding. There is a place for speed breeding and always has been, but to me it got way out of hand. The trend has not rendered the Belmont moot, the Belmont helps measure generation versus generation and demonstrates how the pendulum swung too far. The pendulum needs to swing back and the Belmont is one of the strongest pieces of evidence. Like I said earlier, I think it is very possible we could see a European waltz over here and take the TC. I'm not sure how many would try because they care about their prestigious races more. We could see a horse that is turf bred do it; like someone by Kitten's Joy.

Can we still consider them great achievements?

Tonalist missed the opportunity to run in the Florida Derby (or perhaps another prep race) due to his sickness. Clearly he is a good enough horse to be running in TC races but under Coburn's ridiculous (just give it to 'em) idea, Clement would have either had to push a sick horse to a prep or forfeit running in a race for which he knew he could have Tonalist ready. And your belief about "a little sickness" is inaccurate. Horses are very often scratched from prominent races and have their training delayed for weeks due to coughs and slight fevers. Clement absolutely did the right thing for the horse. I am not a huge Andrew Beyer fan but here is his article, partially on the subject. I think the quote above pretty much sums things up. As for Espinoza's opinion of the situation you'll pardon me if I take it with a grain of salt. I can't find the article but I read one which quoted Espinoza as saying that if CC did win the Triple Crown he would have to be considered the greatest horse of all time. I'm guessing that is the same article you referenced and ran Wed or Thu or Belmont week. Don't you think that undermines his credibility just a bit? I partially agree but the part you leave out is that for about three decades now, North American breeding has been focused more on speed and less on stamina. I think Lucky Pulpit is an interesting mid-tier sire for a few reasons, but I think I am accurate in stating that he never won past 5-1/2 Furlongs. This trend is most certainly a determining factor in the lack of a TC winner. It is not everything, but it is a factor. Although primarily bred for grass I would not be at all surprised to see the next TC winner come from a European sire line. A turf sire occasionally gets a great dirt offspring and it is bound to happen at some point that a prominent European or Middle Eastern outfit sees the opportunity and grabs it. Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced (if that is what you just did) is not well founded in my opinion. Well, Cielo had two races under his belt in May where his most prominent rivals Aloma's Ruler and Gato Del Sol each had only one, but that really isn't the point. You already made my point. Woody Stephens, who in fact did win 5 Belmonts in a row (you say that like it is a bad thing) did not push Cielo into the earlier races. Some may think this was cowardly because they don't get their Triple Crown winner sponsored by Hot Pockets, but to have run him would have been cruel. But let's go back to 1982 and slap Coburn's restrictions on the Belmont. Taking the horses that ran in the Derby and the Preakness and entered the Belmont would have given the 1982 Belmont Stake a whopping field size of ZERO. Great plan. If you assume that the runners in the first two would have stayed the course due to their advantage the field would have been Laser Light, Bold Style and Reinvested. I think we did a little better getting to see Cielo. Instituting Coburn's plan would make both the Preakness and the Belmont restricted stakes races. As I'm sure you're aware, that is a technical term in racing, not just a description. Restricted Stakes are not graded stakes by definition. With fields of zero or three good luck in keeping the ungraded Belmont a prominent American race.

No offense but this post and your others before it show that you know very little about horse racing, which probably means your ideas to improve it have little merit. The suggestion that Secretariat won because he had it easy is stupefying. I would categorize Sham as significantly better than Chrome and I think very few would argue. Still, that is pretty meaningless because Secretariat's Belmont crushed everything before or after it. Bob Beamon times 10. If there were a thread about cricket I would refrain from telling everyone how to improve the game.

I'm pretty sure the reason that hasn't been tried before is because it is a stupid idea. How could you ever force the losing horses from the first leg to compete in the second? The third? How does each race build its own status as a Grade 1 race?

I don't even understand what you wrote but keep in mind that there is no one governing body over horse racing. There is no "they" to do whatever it is that you are proposing. Other than that, I'm sure it is a great idea.

That has simply not been true for a long time now. The explosion of the Kentucky Derby into a 20 horse bonanza eradicated anything resembling that. I have seen too many horses die on the track under the best of conditions to take the above seriously. I have come to the realization that you have been trolling for the second half of this thread. Congratulations on fooling me for a while. California Chrome is nothing close to a super horse. The rest of his career will make this obvious. He will be anywhere from decent with a few more wins in mid-tier stakes races (my guess) or competitive in the upper echelon for this year and next (I'd bet against that). Both Tonalist and Medal Count, along with the previously injured Honor Code, Shared Belief and possibly Cairo Prince and Constitution will probably prove superior. As for horses training and then racing? That's is how it is done in everything from a maiden race to a Stakes race.

Something different? Yes and no. The races are still being run as individual races. The notion of tying them together would have been as absurd, idiotic and abusive to the horses in 1949 as it is in 2014. The biggest difference is that most years nowadays you see 20, or nearly 20, horses in the Derby. I am not aware of whether there was a limit lower than 20 in the past, but owners of horses who were not good enough limited themselves. With 20 horses in the Derby, the best horse wins a lot less frequently than it would in a more traditional 12 horse field. Math says that this makes a TC more difficult. If someone were to make an argument to limit the Derby to 14, I might think that was ok (I haven't thought about it that much). On the other hand, limiting an owner's ability to enter a horse in a specific race because he had not run in a previous specific race is self destructive to that race (in this case the Belmont) and to racing in general. Your doubling down on the stupid comments about a fresh horse beating Secretariat are still wrong. And in fact sometimes owners won't enter certain races because they know they will be beaten. There was simply no one in 1973 that was going to beat Secretariat and no context other than what you saw on video is necessary. Below is exhibit A of the evidence that sometimes owners wait for more winnable races. It is a rare and extreme example, but it is still valid. These are incredibly ignorant comments regarding the training, racing, and health of horses.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I only go back 30 years because of the date of my birth (well, maybe a little more than 30 years as I am a bit older than I actually realize). I don't need to make charts and graphs because I have followed the sport and I understand it in detail. I also don't need to have charts to tell me Tony Gwynn was a good hitter because I followed his career. If you want to find out why you are wrong (well, one of the hundred reasons anyway) then you go and make the charts. To suggest Evans is embracing some sort of spoiler role or is out for revenge is simply idiotic. I'd like to pick a softer word to use there (like naive, or uninformed) but those would be insufficient. Evans entered Tonalist simply because he was ready to contend in one of the most important races in the sport. You are upset because the owner of a horse acted in his own self interest? Other than the horse, whose interest was he supposed to act in? Someone who wants a watered down achievement? Then why not just name every year's Derby winner the Triple Crown winner because everyone wants it to happen? Maybe the entire NFL should lay down for the next two years so the Seahawks can have a threepeat. As a point of clarification the original goal was to have Tonalist pointed toward the Derby but a sickness prevented that. Are people really arguing that the same sickness should have disqualified him from the Belmont? And what was going on between 1948 and 1973? Was that chicanery too? California Chrome is not a Triple Crown winner because he did not winn all three races. Period. It is not because of a conspiracy. It is not because someone cheated. It is because he lost the Belmont. Good article Before Chrome's loss and the subsequent rant, I had never heard anyone complain about new shooters in Triple Crown races. Ever. This includes the owners of Spectaular Bid, Pleasant Colony, Charismatic, Silver Charm, War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones or Big Brown, all of whom lost to new shooters. It also includes owners of Alysheba, Sunday Silence, and Real Quiet who lost to old shooters. It also includes the winners of the Preakness and Belmont who lost the Derby or winners of the Derby and Belmont who lost the Preakness. But don't let that stand in the way of Chrome's owner wanting to change the entire landscape of the sport and call everyone a coward. Would a brave Evans have run a sick Tonalist in the Derby and risk the horse's life? Another point of note is that if you lined up Spectacular Bid, Pleasant Colony, Charismatic, War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Big Brown, Alysheba, Sunday Silence and Real Quiet in a strting gate, most of the ones who lost to the new shooters would be the long shots in the race. Certianly Funny Cide, Charismatic, War Emblem and Big Brown should be 20+-1 in that race. Spectacular Bid would probably be favored or close, Smarty Jones would be a contender and Pleasant Colony would be about 10-1. Spectacular Bid had an excuse in his Belmont (stepped on an industrial safety pin) as did Smarty Jones (poor ride by the jockey). Pleasant Colony lost to Summing not because he was a new shooter, but because he got away with a slow pace. Alysheba and Sunday Silence would be second and third choice with Real Quiet a fringe player. California Chrome? 15-1 if I'm being very generous. The linked article, written just before the Belmont, references a lot factors about the dearth of TC winners. The writer spoke to a lot of people that know a thing or two. Not one of them mentioned new shooters. Why? Because the races are individual races and placing weird restrictions on them because of the hot pockets crowd would be a profound disservice to the sport. Please just stop. Coburn considered every horse except Ride on Curlin and General A Rod to be cowards. He wanted the TC handed to him. Sorry but no. And really just stop with the fresh horse vs. Secretariat angle. No horse in history had come within 20 LENGTHS of that performance and no horse since (41 years) has come within 12. Old shooter, new shooter, or shot out of a cannon, every horse in the history of the world would have lost that day except one. Secretariat.

I have no desire to go back through 40 years of fields with 3 races each year and build some kind of chart for 120 races including new shooters and horses who ran all 3. I've watched these races for over thirty years and I know how things have gone. Secretariat had to beat fewer horses because he scared off the rest. His Belmont validated that fear. It was 20 lengths bettter than any race ever run at a mile and a half in history. It would not have mattered if there were nine fresh horses in that race that day. If anyone can't see that I don't know what more to say. There is no graded stakes of any sort which requires a horse had run in a prescribed previous race. The grading process looks at race history to determine its 1, 2, 3 or ungraded status. These grades are changed on a regular basis. With fields of 6 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont there would be no justification for these races remaining Grade 1 for long. The entire aura of the TC would disintegrate. I want to repeat that this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. There are many, many reasons beyond the ones I have already mentioned. I remember a horse that would be considered a fresh horse by the standards laid oout in this thread and by Coburn. I have linked the Youtube of his Belmont. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDuajNdfTek He had not run in the Derby or the Preakness. So he was fresh, right? WRONG (that is a little throwback for some of the old timers). The Belmont was run on a Saturday. On Monday of that same week, Cielo had beaten older horses at one mile in the Grade 1 Met Mile. He was a 3 year old beating older horses and then running the Belmont 5 days later. This set up Conquistador Cielo as one of the most intriguing stallion prospects in history and paid the owner handsomely (FWIW he turned out to be just an above average sire). By Coburn's ridiculous new set of standards, he would have been inelgible for the Belmont because he would have been considered fresh and the owner would have forfeited his hadsome ROI. That was actually a pretty interesting year. The Derby winner, Gato Del Sol sat out the Preakness because there was a heavy favorite by the name of Linkage. Linkage was defeated in the Preakness by a horse name Aloma's Ruler. Later in the year I attended the Travers which featured all 3 of the TC race winners. Guess who won? None of them. Races are individual and need to stay that way. The Triple Crown links these three races in an unoffical manner only. It comes off as one event due to the history and the hype. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it as much as the next guy, but officially making it one event would be a huge mistake.

Although I understand this, I still disagree with it. Part of my disagreement is based on tradition and keeping that tradition fully intact. The other part goes to the fact that there is no practical way of even getting it done. The three race are governed by three different entities. If Kentucky wanted to move the Derby to the first Saturday in April, they could. Same goes for Pimlico and NYRA (Belmont). All of this would impact the prep seasons at Gulfstream, Aqueduct, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Lousiana, Arkansas and other places. It is very impractical. I suspect that the biggest change of all would be the gradual disintegration of the TC. There would be competitors to the races popping up if the races spread out. A big purse at a race in California may lure horses away because the timing was better for the money available. That in itself would be ok; it has happened before (see Spend a Buck) but the frequency would increase. Racing in general has seen some tough times for a while now. New York and Kentucky are doing ok but I think spreading these race out might just be the nail in Pimlico's coffin. I remember in the 80s D. Wayne Lukas (who has improved with age, but was a real self centered guy back then) suggested changing the distances to a 1 1/8 Derby, maintaining the 1 3/16 Preakness and 1 1/4 Belmont. This was dumb. Only 10% as dumb as Coburn but still dumb. Lukas' horses had a general reputation of not being get a distance. His suggestion was also self serving. The game is the game. It is tough. That is part of what makes it great and why true greatness can show itself in the Triple Crown.

I don't want to come off as a know it all, but I will re-state that all of these arguments are ridiculous. It is not even something I consider an opinion. It is simply a fact. These are three distinct races. Calling them the Triple Crown is very cool. It will be great to see the next winner and there absolutely will be one. If they implement the rules suddenly advocated by this owner, we will see Triple Crown winners very frequently and it will become meaningless. We will also see many more injured horses than we already do as horses scramble to make it to the Derby when they should really wait. Between 1948 and 1973 a lot of people thought we had seen the last Triple Crown winner. And look what happened at the end of this wait. And to say Secretariat would have been in danger if fresh horses were being run is ludicrous beyond compare. His Belmont beat the second best mile and a half race ever run before by 20+ lengths. Not the second best Belmont, not the second best mile and a half race that year, but the second best mile and a half race ever run anywhere in the world ever in hundreds of years of racing. The video at the beginning of this thread says it all. I don't really care to go back and document how many Preaknesses and Belmonts had new shooter entries. This is because it is nothing new and has been happening forever. There has never been and should never be a prerequisite for entering the Preakness and Belmont of having run in the Derby. I am not aware of any thoroughbred race that has another race as a prerequisite. There is some of this in harness racing with qualifiers and such. We do enough to satisfy the instant gratification crowd already. Do we really need to make up new rules for horse racing too? With these rules, the 2014 Belmont would have contained CC, Ride on Curlin and General A Rod. And the Preakness would have been the same three horses. What an achievement that would have been. The biggest change over the last 30 years or so is really Derby fever. Owners and trainers are doing everything they can to win the Derby. Or maybe just make it to the Derby. This results in some very good horses being injured on the way to Louisville, and many horses being spent after Louisville and before Baltimore. Coburn's solution is to either have these horses stressed even more at an early stage of their 3 year old season or to be ineligible for two important races. And that is because he felt entitled to owning a TC winner. The whole rant is a joke. I could probably list 100 other reasons (how about the fact that there is no singular body governing racing like the MLB or the NFL) why this won't and shouldn't happen. Billy Turner, the trainer of Seattle Slew (1977) was quoted as saying that there is not really any way to train for the TC as a whole. He said he knew Slew could win the Derby and Preakness but had no idea about the Belmont. CC is no Seattle Slew and should not be made to look like one by lessening of the of the obstacles to a Triple Crown.

I hate to disagree so vehemently but this entire conversation brought up by the owner of California Chrome is wrong and ridiculous. First of all, The Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont are three separate, prestigious Grade 1 races. Each has its own tradition which is over 100 years old. Each has a high purse which offers owners a return on their substantial investment in the game. Each has its own meaning to future breeding rights. The Triple Crown is simply a title given to the three race combination. It is not a singular event and never has been. There have been horses that have individual specialties that fit each of these races every year that I have watched it for the last 30 or so. These horses are now to be excluded because one horse failed at the 2014 Belmont? The owners' complaining about how it isn't fair to the horses is far off base. In fact, the requirement to run in the Derby and the Preakness as a prerequisite for the Belmont would be grossly unfair to the horses. However powerful they may be these are delicate animals and forcing them on a schedule of 3 races in a 5 week span is absolutely ludicrous. The fact that he even brought this up as a topic just blew my mind. Every owner and trainer should do what is right by the horse. If he isn't ready for the Kentucky Derby (not quite there maturity wise, coming off a fever, coming off an injury, or a thousand other reasons) but is ready for the Belmont, he should run in the Belmont. Period. If a trainer pushed a horse to the Derby when he was 90% and the horse suffered a fatal injury, what would the story line be? If this owner's argument is ever taken seriously in any way, it would be a horrible shame. CC's owner came into today looking like a small time working class hero and would have left the same if he were gracious in defeat. Instead he called Mr. Evans a coward. I can assure you that Mr. Evans has forgotten more about horses, horse racing and the industry than this guy will ever know. His statements immediately went to the top of my list for most unsportsmanlike things I have ever seen. I hope he profusely apologizes and says the emotion of the moment got to him. I though NBC handled it almost as poorly as the owner. The interviewer kept asking for more which was bad enough. Costas bringing it up in the winner's circle with the winning owner and the governor there was horrible. Let them enjoy the moment this guy has worked for decades to see. This is the Sport of Kings, not some reality show Bob.

Agreed on Real Quiet. To me he was just a cut (or two) below Easy Goer/SS. Animal Kingdom is another one even though he won just one TC race. It was a true shame to lose him as an American stallion. He had very intriguing lines and could have offered a lot to the industry. I see his potential as being like a Kitten's Joy but for both dirt and turf horses. As for Jess's dream I am not following yet. I loved Curlin and Rachel but any foal is a hit and miss proposition. Also I entered the naming contest for the horse and they go and name it Jess's Dream. I get why, but then why have a contest? I can't share the name of my entry because I am saving it for when I own a horse (two days after I hit the lottery). On name alone the horse would be destined for greatness.