All right, so I don’t usually follow horse racing, at least
since I lived in
Hialeah, FL in the 1950s, and saw some thoroughbreds
put through their paces. But I have been interested in ‘California Chrome’ and
the filly’s chase of the Triple Crown.
As many have pointed out , however, the Triple Crown has mutated into a
farce ever since the rules were changed so that horses didn’t have to compete
in each race of the Triple Crown (Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont
Stakes).
Now, this is where I draw the line, as much or more than
when the green eyeshade types fudged the
DOW in the 1990s. “Green eyeshade types" (which could be applied to all those who game systems for money) is not my unique term – it was first
used by Baltimore
Sun writer Jay Hancock, when he noted ('Dow Index Detaches from Reality', The
Baltimore Sun, April 4, 1999, p. 1E):
A committee of green eyeshade types juiced the lineup,
blackballing four down-at-heel Dow members and picking ringers as replacements.
Out went Bethlehem
Steel, Woolworth, Texaco and Westinghouse. In came Johnson & Johnson,
Wal-Mart, Hewlett-Packard and Travelers. One -eighth of the Dow membership
changed that day, but you'd never know it from looking at those mountainous Dow
graphs....Without the switch, by my calculation, the Dow would have been near
9,000 last week. Not 10,000.
So what is this shit now with altering venerable rules on a
whim? How much has our nation been degraded and fooled since this macabre habit
commenced? Why are more and more systems, venues being gamed? (I myself hadn't been aware of the gaming of the Triple Crown - leading to NO winners since 1978- until wifey alerted me to it, while reading an article about Chrome's efforts.)
The Triple Crown aspiration for a proud race horse used to
be sacrosanct. And then, for some reason, the goobers at the top altered the
rules so that horses didn’t have to compete in each leg of the Crown. But then,
WTF is the point? It would be about like having a College Final Four tournament and three of the
end teams were allowed to just lolli-plop in there without having to play earlier opponents
in earlier rounds. So they'd have a distinct advantage over the lone team that
has plowed through every round.
Chrome’s co-owner Steve Coburn (who alas, delivered a terrible analogy to the travesty his filly experienced)was furious after the race
and he had a right to be. Some media morons labeled him a “sore loser” but
surely not, as he referred to those horses that skipped the first two legs
to compete in the
Belmont:
“That’s the coward’s way out. It’s not fair to these horses
that have been in the game from day one. If you don’t make enough points to get
into the Kentucky Derby, you can’t run in the other two races. It’s all or
nothing.”
He describes the basis of a sane and rational system that doesn’t pander simply
to money and greed. In other words, rack up points for each horse in each race
– according to time and placement. Only
the top five or six horses – with the most points accumulated - can then compete in the final (which is also the most rigorous leg), the Belmont
Stakes.
In addition, from the outset of any special racing series –
take the Triple Crown – the field must remain
stable – NO newcomers! The field is
the winnowed as the next two races unfold – much as the much vaster field to
the Final Four is winnowed by active participation – not just popping up as a
“Johnny come lately” and catching a break (or playing spoiler). If you haven’t
worked your ass off in the first race, the Derby, you don’t get any further. It’s hasta
la vista! Either that, or no longer refer to a "Triple Crown" series. (It's more a Triple Crown fantasy...or farce.)
Thus, by the mandate of a stable field, only the 20 horses
that originally ran in the Kentucky Derby ought to be eligible for the
Preakness. This sounds harsh, perhaps, but only because people are looking at
it from an inverted, false perspective. I’d even call it a “Neoliberal”
perspective, given the extent to which that idiom has changed the rules across
multiple fronts and gamed fairness away.
By the time of the Preakness, then, perhaps only ten horses
are eligible based on points accumulated. By the time of the Belmont, perhaps
only five are eligible and bear in mind this is the most grueling race at all
…at 1.5 miles. But the smaller competitor field is exactly what one expects in
a fair chase to the championship.
After
all, in similar ways, the playoff teams are winnowed for the NFL, as are the
college teams contending for the Final Four – or the NBA Finals.
(This is also why I have bitterly opposed the
NFL adding a new spate of playoff teams, which will just water down the
competition. Can you say 'mediocrity'?).
Of course, assorted media nitwits don't agree. Jay Privmann (who's incredibly covered horse racing for 30 years), said in the aftermath (making my head explode):
"
Whether or not a Triple Crown happens should not be the guiding force on how the Triple Crown is scheduled. It's a great event, a great series of races. And I don't think it should be altered just to accommodate a horse trying to win all three of them."
Hey, nitwit! It
was altered - since 1978! (That was the year of the last winner, 'Afformed'). So Privmann has it exactly ass -backwards. In other words, the alteration was done NOT to accommodate a horse or owner trying to win all three. In the end, Privmann - for all his gushing - doesn't get that the Triple Crown has thereby become meaningless: a wistful echo of the past, that mayhap one bionic filly may win, but no normal horse has a chance. It's all about the betting, the moola! Deal with it!
The only reason to preserve increased fields – whether in
NFL playoffs or Triple Crown races - is money! Thus, the more contenders, the more different
bets can be made on the supposed potential winners. This is one more sign of how our
nation has even degraded its sports competitions by the excess veneration of
money.
Tonalist, the winner of the Belmont, was a “fresh and rested horse”
according to the media. In other words, it was an outrage for this critter to
even be there. He didn’t earn it, and merely played the role of spoiler.
Chrome, meanwhile, also had to nurse a gashed hoof – which made it a double
handicap for him to win. (Tonalist beat
‘Commissioner’ – another new-be, by a head, a double disgrace.)
The way the current system for the Triple Crown is stacked,
it is clear there will never be another Triple Crown winner unless maybe, the
horse is secretly a bionic and genetically engineered superhorse. But maybe
that is exactly what the powers-that-be want: multiple competitors but no clear
Triple Crown winner.
The owners of Secretariat - who won in '73 and wanted to welcome Chrome into the magic winners' ring- will have to wait past the time the Sun inflates to a Red Giant - if then - before any more Triple Crown winners emerge. In other words, they never will - not under the current gamed system.
Advice to horse owners: Don't even think of running your horse for the Triple Crown. Under the existing 'loaded' system at work, it makes more sense to play spoiler for those who do! The cost to benefits ratio is clearly insurmountable for those seeking a Triple Crown.
-------------------
Footnote:
A day later Coburn apologized for his words, but I don't believe he should have. In that first instant he simply told more truth than most can accept in our now re-vamped "modern" horse racing world - where the 1 percent rule, like they do everyplace else!
No comments:
Post a Comment