Is this really a good thing?

dean smith · #1 05-17-2009, 08:18 AM

As it turns out, it looks like Mine That Bird is legit and the best (non-Rachel Alexandra) 3-year-old in the country at this time. Yes, everyone loves Rachel Alexandra, but is her ruining MTB's Triple Crown chances really good for the sport?

Look, he probably wasn't going to win it anyway (I'm convinced it's a near-impossibility for whatever reasons after watching War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones and Big Brown fail the past few years), but at least it would keep the casual sports fan interested for another three weeks. Now, instead of three solid weeks of horse racing and Triple Crown talk on ESPN (they who tell them what to watch, who to root for, and what is relevent in sports), we might get a few "nice little stories" about silly nonsense like "girls can beat boys" a few days leading up to the Belmont.

For a sport struggling to stay relevent that really only enjoys about six weeks in the spotlight out of the year IF there's a Triple Crown chase, Rachel Alexandra just chopped that time in half.

I've been trying to get my NFL/NBA/MLB obsessed idiot friends half as interested in the sport as I am for years and I've discovered that after the Belmont, the game's momentum comes to a screeching halt. One of them actually sent me an email saying "better luck next year, cuz NOBODY cares about the Belmont now."

I don't know who to blame, RA's previous owners and their incredibly foolish and stubborn refusal to race a filly against colts in the Derby, or the sport itself for not doing everything in its power to make sure there's a Triple Crown chance each year. If that means freezing out a threat in the Preakness or even an outright, good ol' fashioned race fixin', I'm on board!

(I don't know if I even mean what I wrote with that last paragraph, I just got on a roll.)

Danzig · #2 05-17-2009, 08:21 AM

you're kidding, right? this is a joke?

dean smith · #3 05-17-2009, 08:24 AM

No. I'm not. This isn't a joke. It may be great for all of us who love the sport, but as far as growing the fanbase of the sport, I think anytime you don't have the Triple Crown run, it is a terrible thing. Whether this is right or wrong, it's a reality.

Danzig · #4 05-17-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean smith

No. I'm not. This isn't a joke. It may be great for all of us who love the sport, but as far as growing the fanbase of the sport, I think anytime you don't have the Triple Crown run, it is a terrible thing. Whether this is right or wrong, it's a reality.

i think it's wrong, and far from reality.

we haven't had a tc winner since affirmed. if you talk to some writers, they think the non tc winner is a good thing. look at it this way, had MTB won the tc (lol yeah, right) there would be next to no drama next year because people wouldn't expect it to happen again next year, and the draw would be down dramatically. not having a tc winner gives a lot of folks a reason to tune in to see if it will finally happen.
besides, what good would it have to have your idiot friends (as you called them) interested in a sport that they think ends with the belmont? i'd imagine if nyra can get both mtb and rachel to come, the excitement of 'round two' would be tremendous.

and i have to question just how serious you are when you think they should freeze horses out or fix the race for a favorable outcome. i'd love to see a tc winner as bad as anyone, but i was cheering for rachel yesterday. it was a great race, and a great performance from the filly. people have been talking about the demise of racing for years...yet here it remains.

herkhorse · #5 05-17-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean smith

No. I'm not. This isn't a joke. It may be great for all of us who love the sport, but as far as growing the fanbase of the sport, I think anytime you don't have the Triple Crown run, it is a terrible thing. Whether this is right or wrong, it's a reality.

Wrong. My phone is ringing off the hook this morning from non race fans telling me what a great race that was. Yesterday was a great day for horse racing, lets enjoy it.

King Glorious · #6 05-17-2009, 08:31 AM

They could put in an earnings rule for the Preakness and Belmont. Something like "preference given to horses with $0 earned in any race. Second preference given to maiden winners only. Any winners of races other than maiden or maiden claiming races, not eligible." Something like that would be perfect.

Look, you don't want to give it away. You want to make them earn it. Affirmed had to beat Alydar three times. Sunday Silence would have had to beat Easy Goer three times. Alysheba over Bet Twice three times. I think ideally, you'd want to believe that at some point in the three races, a TC winner would have had to beat the best challenger out there. He didn't get that chance in the Derby.

Danzig · #7 05-17-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

They could put in an earnings rule for the Preakness and Belmont. Something like "preference given to horses with $0 earned in any race. Second preference given to maiden winners only. Any winners of races other than maiden or maiden claiming races, not eligible." Something like that would be perfect.

Look, you don't want to give it away. You want to make them earn it. Affirmed had to beat Alydar three times. Sunday Silence would have had to beat Easy Goer three times. Alysheba over Bet Twice three times. I think ideally, you'd want to believe that at some point in the three races, a TC winner would have had to beat the best challenger out there. He didn't get that chance in the Derby.

exactly. keeping good horses out to guarantee a win would be more detrimental. it would be a hollow victory and the 'winner' would be a paper tiger. people aren't dumb-they'd know what they had seen was a fraud. that would be worse than the type of stuff we had yesterday. the preakness had more buzz than i've seen in years, since in years' past so many skipped the second race to freshen for the belmont. having rachel will create buzz for the race in three weeks. will she or won't she? will the derby winner show up to try again? it's great stuff.

dean smith · #8 05-17-2009, 08:42 AM

OK. Fair enough. I may have gone too far. I see your point about the drama of the TC drought. But if it's over with the Preakness...

This is what my buddy sent me this morning:

Mine That Bird needed an extra 1/8th to get past Calvin Borel - guess you'll have to wait to win em over next year Brav, cuz who cares about the Belmont now

And this guy is a semi-horse racing fan! That is, he gets interested for about six weeks out of the year.

And maybe that's what's really distressing me.

Danzig · #9 05-17-2009, 08:47 AM

perhaps you should explain to him that races are just as good, as exciting, when two good ones face off with just one trophy on the line. or even when it's just a 10k purse...

dean smith · #10 05-17-2009, 08:49 AM

You're thoughts are just what I needed to hear. Thank you for slapping me back to reality. I'm changing my avatar to honor you and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Danzig · #11 05-17-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean smith

You're thoughts are just what I needed to hear. Thank you for slapping me back to reality. I'm changing my avatar to honor you and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

who's that? certainly not the danzig i met in ky a few years ago!!

Danzig · #12 05-17-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Anytime the best horses race against each other......it's a good thing. Everyone speculated what Rachel Alexandra could have done in the Derby, and thanks to Jess Jackson we got to see how good she really is. Nowadays connections duck running each other all year long and it's why we have paper champions.

I understand the sentiment of the original post. But, I also agree with the folks who say a triple crown will not be the saving grace for the sport that some think. While Rachel Alexandra's win yesterday eliminated a possible huge story going forward in 3 weeks at Belmont, it also created a huge story in it's own right. We got the 2 best (non injured) 3 year olds together, battling it out on the track. And they both ran big and it was a fantastic race. What more as fans....and bettors could we ask for?

People were interested in the Preakness going in and just as interested after the race. I also had non-racing fan friends calling me all week asking about the race. They had seen Borel on Leno, and heard about the jockey switches on ESPN, etc. After the race the calls came in also. People were excited about the race, and they wanted to talk about it. Somehow as a sport we need to try and capture what we saw yesterday and have it happen more often if this sport is going to move back into people's hearts. I don't know how we can do it, but keeping horse racing in the media will certainly help. And the way to keep it in the media is having the best horses racing against each other, which is what we had yesterday. Sorry for the novel.

Travis Stone · #13 05-17-2009, 08:53 AM

Having a Triple Crown winner will not save horse racing.

Having a Triple Crown on the line does more for horse racing than most other events in the game throughout the year. Last year is a good example... Big Brown's Belmont versus Curlin almost all year.

And the thought that a TC winner will dumb-down the following years Triple Crown because "it won't likely happen again" is ridiculous.

dean smith · #14 05-17-2009, 08:53 AM

That's Glen Danzig. Of heavy metal fame. He's a muscle man with the height of a jockey.

Danzig · #15 05-17-2009, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Having a Triple Crown winner will not save horse racing.

Having a Triple Crown on the line does more for horse racing than most other events in the game throughout the year. Last year is a good example... Big Brown's Belmont versus Curlin almost all year.

And the thought that a TC winner will dumb-down the following years Triple Crown because "it won't likely happen again" is ridiculous.

i've read it-maybe plonk wrote it...

Handicappy · #16 05-17-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean smith

OK. Fair enough. I may have gone too far. I see your point about the drama of the TC drought. But if it's over with the Preakness...

This is what my buddy sent me this morning:

Mine That Bird needed an extra 1/8th to get past Calvin Borel - guess you'll have to wait to win em over next year Brav, cuz who cares about the Belmont now

And this guy is a semi-horse racing fan! That is, he gets interested for about six weeks out of the year.

And maybe that's what's really distressing me.

Bring your friends to the track. Teach them how to bet and have them make a $2 bet and sit back. They'll be fans before you know it.

Danzig · #17 05-17-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Having a Triple Crown winner will not save horse racing.

Having a Triple Crown on the line does more for horse racing than most other events in the game throughout the year. Last year is a good example... Big Brown's Belmont versus Curlin almost all year.

And the thought that a TC winner will dumb-down the following years Triple Crown because "it won't likely happen again" is ridiculous.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...e-crown-winner

Now what? Will mainstream America care any longer when a horse attempts to sweep the Triple Crown or will they say, "Well, it's been done, so it's no big deal anymore." As long as it seems an improbable, almost unattainable, quest, people will flock to Belmont Park hoping to be there when it is finally accomplished. Everyone wants to be a part of history.
Following the Triple Crown sweeps of Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Affirmed from 1973-'78, was there really that much buzz over Spectacular Bid's attempt in '79 or had people become blasé about it and were expecting it to happen again?

Danzig · #18 05-17-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean smith

That's Glen Danzig. Of heavy metal fame. He's a muscle man with the height of a jockey.

i believe his one claim to fame is the song 'mother'. but i got my name from the horse-who is much better looking in my opinion!!

MaTH716 · #19 05-17-2009, 09:08 AM

I think I understand the point he was tring to get across. Maybe he's right with most of the steam being taken out of the TC and Belmonts Stakes sails. But yesterday's race was so exciting that maybe some of the people that only watch the TC will be intrigued enough to watch Rachel Alexandra whenever and wherever she runs next.
Maybe it wasn't the best result for the near term (meaning next 3 weeks), but in the long run that race/performance could do nothing but help the game.

Left Bank · #20 05-17-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean smith

OK. Fair enough. I may have gone too far. I see your point about the drama of the TC drought. But if it's over with the Preakness...

This is what my buddy sent me this morning:

Mine That Bird needed an extra 1/8th to get past Calvin Borel - guess you'll have to wait to win em over next year Brav, cuz who cares about the Belmont now

And this guy is a semi-horse racing fan! That is, he gets interested for about six weeks out of the year.

And maybe that's what's really distressing me.

You should explain to your friends how some racetracks have slots parlors and table games available and they could go play those while you waste your time throwing your money away on horse racing