Oh no!! There aren't enough threads about Big Brown!! Don't do it, boss!!!

'Stride' debate: The starter on track & photo stand
 

Did starter on track and photo stand add to Big Brown's early agitation?

i tend to agree with dick on this one.... and i am a kent lover. but i said before the race, why risk getting in any trouble ? why not go straight to the top, and he did not, and he got in trouble.

and the witch hunt continues....... What's next, he was distracted by Quantas 747 landing at JFK?

This is old news actually. Ed Fontaine of the Post had the photo Sunday in the paper and there was early speculation that the starter in white pants on the track and the 15' camera stand both contributed to the colt's early edginess.

Yeah, why does that dude need to be there?

If I was that dude, I wouldn't want to be there

yeah man he looks like he's right in Browns path... doesnt make sense to me at all.

Reaction to the photo didn't come from connections. It came from press when they saw it. And the starter is usually on the other side of the rail and closer up. It's not just him either. The tower of photographers is right there too and it's been suggested that it caught his eye too.

If you look really closely, I'm in the middle right portion of the crowd in that picture. Can you see me?

Looks like a nice ad for West Point TB...

The starter at NYRA is always on the track not inside the rail. Started by Bob Duncan who thought he could see the field better from that vantage point. Most starters are on a little platform inside the rail.

The reason is the horse was simply not in shape or ready for this race. after setting around 3 weeks and foot problems, then a light work-out is like trying to play full-court basketball after laying on the couch for a week. kent had a rank horse for the moment they brought him over from barn. he should have never run in this race period.

ny times and espn report dutrow and desormeaux "back on target" and KD retains mount- also Big Brown's monthly winstrol will resume.:zz:

I just don't see what all the debating is about. Sure, is there a tendency to "blame" or "look for excuses" or "justification" for that matter? Yeah, I guess I can see that.

Be that as it may -- I think this is very simple. The jock did not cause this horse to lose the race -- PERIOD! Was it a textbook ride? No, but this horse on this day was not a textbook horse. There were many things going on and many contributory factors that played into the entire situation. The jock played the cards he was dealt and nobody truly knows if the cards could have been played differently. Based upon everything that was going on, it is more probable that possible, that there was nothing else that could have been done. The jock was dealing with an unmanagable, close to unmanagble, difficult to control, perhaps impossible to control, horse.

It's always easier -- very easy as a matter of fact -- to play, or replay, the hand after it's over. It's also very easy to say how it should have been played, but that's when you have the liberty of knowing the outcome or of second guessing the decision that was made.

Eric

as good an explanation as any others i've seen.

i like billy turners take on it-they couldn't train him right, and get him fit for 12f due to the foot. there were a variety of factors that contributed to his loss, but i think most of it was the foot.

to say 'oh it's all desormeauxs fault' is an oversimplification. it's a lot of things. kent had nothing but horse every other race; he rode him the same way this time, and the horse wasn't there. that's not kents fault.

Good point, but I am not buying this arguement from people. I think the only people who were comparing this horse to Secretariat or Seattle Slew were either glamorizing the present and the comparison or were completely uninformed or uneducated. The sport needs that kind of comparison. It's only natural. People get excited that "it's happening -- again" perhaps. It's like someone approaching hitting 400, or the old 60 home run mark. People get into that mindset.

This horse had a lot more to do in order to be truly compared to and on par with those two greats. If he won, sure, he would be an undefeated Triple Crown winner -- and that's a "great accomplishment" -- but it doesn't make him one of the all-time greats or a truly great horse. It certainly gets him closer, but not all there.

In my mind, he'd have to keep going -- and go on -- not retire undefeated, but go on and continue to prove that he is a truly great horse. If he came back, one a few more G1's, beat older horses, faced adversity again and again, took on all comers, the mid-year and late bloomers, and so on. If he retired after winning the Triple Crown undefeated -- to me the true greatness was still elusive. The greatness was perhaps what could have been. It was the potential -- and that is not definitive. Secreatariat and Seattle Slew were in my mind.

Eric

Eric

With horses being sent to the shed so quickly its almost better for history that Big Brown did'nt win. Had he won the Triple Crown the comparisions to Seattle Slew would have been cut in dry in some peoples minds. That would have been extremely unfair to the true immortals of the game.

Hopefully the humiliation suffered after connections shot their mouths off for 3 weeks leading into the Belmont, will be too much for the egomaniacs involved to swollow. If that is the case they will almost certainly keep the horse in training and pursue Curlin.

If Mr Clay bought in 10PCT at 5 million his investment has been chopped in half. Right now I cannot imagine Big Brown standing for more than 30k. Mr Clay is essentially in on that horse standing at well over 30k. He needs to do more on the track to make the math work.