I was disappointed.

I agree with the owner. They shouldn't allow a horse that didn't run in the other two races to run in the Belmont. It isn't air to put up a fresh horse against a field of tired horses.

The jockey said it was hard on the horse to run back to back like that. He just didn't have the gas to go faster.
Too bad.

Apparently it's within the rules that the horses don't have to run the two previous races, so I feel it was poor sportsmanship to make the remark that was made.

Socks, I think it's a bit like a triathlon -- there's swimming, cycling, and a marathon. Some contestants have completed the swimming and cycling, and are now running the marathon. But most of the marathon runners didn't compete in the swimming or cycling parts of the event, so they're much more rested and ready to run a marathon.

Doesn't seem fair, does it?

I agree with the others posted here and the owner. He was on the news this morning, and why is it called the Triple Crown, if you're only in this particular race?

There were only 2 other horses that raced in the previous races. That's a lot of fresh horses.

Chrome also got knicked in the leg by another horse. That might have hurt him to a degree.

The fact that a horse can still be feeling the effects of the previous race(s)--which didn't exactly happen yesterday--shows how hard racing is on the animals. And these are the ones who were not injured on the track.

Did horses who ran and won the Triple Crown in the past, run against fresh horses?

Let me say I agree with others and the owner, but... would the owner still feel the same if California Chrome had won?

Yes, Lucille, it's been run like that since the 1920's, I guess.

The races are individual races for three year olds. Any three year old thoroughbred can qualify to run in any one, two, or all of those races.

It is a huge, and rare, achievement for a horse to win all three of these races. Less so if the races would be so limited to those who were entered to run all three.

You cannot compare this competition to a triatheon. These are three separate, stand-alone events. It's always been this way and always will be. The owner is a blowhard and sore loser.

He should be enormously grateful to have discovered a talented horse, a winner of two challenging races.

I think that's what makes the Triple Crown so unique. The fact that a horse can run 3 back to back races and still win is a true feat. And it's why it's so rare.

I agree with Socks. I think it was poor sportsmanship to whine. The horses that have won in the past were up against the same rules, and undoubtedly against fresh competition. That makes their accomplishment all the more impressive.

That said, I don't like horse races :(

If other horses have won the Triple Crown against fresh horse, I agree with Tally's post.

Not knowing anything about horse racing I didn't know if the owner's reaction was based on it being unfair or because his horse lost...

One of the owners is from our town and we had a HUGE event for California Chrome yesterday. It's a pretty big deal to have a special horse from our little part of the world. He's still a champ to us.

Angela, I so agree! This horse is a champion no matter what.

I agree that the horse is still a champ!!

But the owner is being a sore loser. Like others have said, these are 3 separate races that make up the Triple Crown. Other horses have managed to win all three, and did so against "fresh" horses.

If 3 weeks between races isn't enough to recover, what's wrong with the horses?

For me, the fact that other horses, though not very many, have done it, tells me the owner is being an ungracious loser. I understand and share his disappointment, but it's how it played out.

I would say it's more the fault of the jockey that the horse didn't do better. I heard that he ended up putting the horse in a position that he doesn't do well in at all.

"I would say it's more the fault of the jockey that the horse didn't do better. I heard that he ended up putting the horse in a position that he doesn't do well in at all."

I've never heard that the jockeys get to choose the starting stall for the horses.

The Newark Star-Ledger and other sources have reported that California Chrome had a chunk of flesh torn from his foot after bumping Matterhorn while leaving the starting gate.

The jockey said afterward, "I noticed something as soon as he came out of the gate. He was not the same. By the 5/8ths pole he was just empty." So what did the jockey do? He beat him to try to make him go faster.

Here's a photo of the wound.

Here is a link that might be useful: Wounded foot

As soon as the horse got behind 4 other horses, the outlook wasn't good.
Ever heard the term "jockeying for position"? Being in the outside lane, having to get by 3 other horses, would have almost needed a miracle.

I personally am horrified by the number of horses who die each year in training or in races, but I admittedly do watch the big races, as my cousin often has a horse running. His horse (I'll Have Another) won the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby last year, so he was going for the Triple Crown. But he pulled his horse off the roster for the Belmont, on advise of the trainer who spotted some swelling on the horse's leg during a training run. I find the races exciting but very stressful, because I'm praying as I watch, that no accidents or injuries will occur.

Lindsey, I meant what foggy was saying. The jockey had Chrome all bunched up in the middle of horses towards the end. There was nowhere for him to break out to pass them up. That is the job of the jockey is to guide the horse to the best possible position on the rail.