Steve Coburn is horse racing's Donald Sterling

[JimbleBrimble]

Steve Coburn has overnight become horse racing's Donald Sterling.

The main difference between Steve Coburn and Donald Sterling is that one of them at least exhibited the good common sense to utter their dumb ass statements and feelings in private!!


What a whining fool Coburn is!!! (Even his partner in ownership of the horse showed the common sense that was staying far, far away from Coburn on Belmont day)

http://www.nj.com/horse-racing/index.ss ... s_way.html

How could this guy not understand that, with all of the (probably erroneous, and definitely insignificant) talk of "a Triple Crown winner being good for racing", his sore-loser antics might be bad for racing???


Coburn's seeming position has no merit whatsoever, especially seeing as how California Chrome, hoof injury and all, was right there knocking at the door during the final furlong of the Belmont Stakes.


The seemingly mythical Triple Crown winners of the past faced an average of just 4.36 foes in their Belmont wins, and that there were ten lined-up to face California Chrome spelled his likely Belmont doom from the moment entries were taken.

Each time racing has a random winner of two consecutive Triple Crown races many people seem to look back in hindsight with the mistaken belief that he was so near to this perceived greatness if only...

Well the fact that, despite all of these (now 20) seeming 2-of-3 "near misses" (since the last Triple Crown winner), there is but a single Derby-Belmont winner alive should tell you something about how truly challenging the Triple Crown sweep is, and appropriately so.


IF you alter the U.S. Triple Crown today, you run the risk of rendering it insignificant, as it has become in England, where they're going on EIGHTY years with but a single Triple Crown winner. That having been Nijinsky in 1970. He was truly a champion.

You want a Derby-Belmont-Travers spacing for the U.S. Triple Crown ???

Guess what? - that trio has only been accomplished once in 70 years as well. (though one other horse finished first in all three, only to be DQ'ed in the Travers - Affirmed was his name)


So, Steve Coburn, ST*U already. Horse racing doesn't need another whiny crybaby.

[madelyn]

Actually another difference between Donald Sterling and Steve Coburn is that the sports association could FORCE Sterling to sell his team. No one can make Coburn sell his share of the horse or learn good manners.

[Joltman]

Sad. But clear that he's new to the game and doesn't understand that it's not 'fair'. I hope he swallows hard and extends to the winner and those that beat CC his congratulations on their fine efforts. The emotions of this guy just got hold of him - could happen to anyone.

jm

[hpkingjr]

I used to make statements like that when I was drunk. Let's play what if. What if the morning of the Derby two starters scratched because of high temps and the also eligibles started. Do you not then have 22 that were good enough to start? (Coburn's words).

It's now all or nothing, a triathlon of horse racing. What if 18 decide to run in the Preakness? Maximum starters 14. Who gets cut? What if 18 decide to run in the Belmont? Maximum starters 16. Who gets cut? Remember they were all good enough to run in the Derby. The only logical choice would be restrict all three races to 14. I'm sure a 5 horse Preakness and 3 horse Belmont would excite racing fans.

Coburn's choice should be coffee.

[TJ]

Maybe Coburn's not so bad anymore:>) TJ

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/california ... d=24053793

[DDT]

TJ

Thanks for the post, we have all opened our mouth and inserted a foot, especially when we are so disappointed, it does not forgive the rant, but I do believe he was sincere, and hopefully all of the good that California Chrome did for racing will be restored to our memories. Thanks again.

DDT

[TJ]

TJ

Thanks for the post, we have all opened our mouth and inserted a foot, especially when we are so disappointed, it does not forgive the rant, but I do believe he was sincere, and hopefully all of the good that California Chrome did for racing will be restored to our memories. Thanks again.

DDT

I agree, seemed totally sincere. Joltman hit the nail on the head, very emotional guy and it took a while for him to "swallow hard" and settle down after the disappointment of Chrome's loss. Glad he did:>) TJ

[mightyhijames]

Maybe Coburn's not so bad anymore:>) TJ

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/california ... d=24053793

this apology should have been extended the morning after the Belmont; instead he was still yapping about how unfair the TC races are. not buying it.

[geowarrior]

where they're going on EIGHTY years with but a single Triple Crown winner. That having been Nijinsky in 1970. He was truly a champion.

Is it that long since Nijinsky? I'm feeling awfully old.

Ok I am awfully old, I misread the post.

[pgregory]

Yea but maybe he has a point. I was totally blown away by his "rant" after the Belmont, but his actual reasoning is sorta sound Why not limit the horses who qualify for the Kentucky Derby to the Triple Crown as well. He does have a a valid point. The Kentucky Derby entrants have to qualify (even if to only limit the entries) why not extend that to the Preakness and Belmont? If you can't qualify for the Kentucky Derby shouldn't that make you ineligible for the rest of the triple crown?

[murphysmom]

Makes NO sense to me. As a 3 day eventer, are you going to tell me that I have me that I have to compete in Burghley, Badminton & Rolex ~ all 3 or none? Same for golf? They are 3 separate events not 1. Same for Derby, Preakness & Belmont. Separate commissions, separate payoffs & separate trophies. The Triple Crown is not a sanctioning body. There is nobody to make rules for it. There is no monetary bonus for winning because again, the Triple Crown is not anything but a theory of 3 races. It is not something to be 'fair' or limited, or made easier just so it can be won. Maryland and New York racing commissions are not going to say, oh let's limit our big Grade 1 million dollar races only to specific horses and thereby limit our income in entry fees, race attendance, etc. Not going to happen, nor should it. Owners pay their entries months in advance. If it were never called the triple crown no one would be debating this.