No triple crown - horse got injured
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
in Sports Talk
Very sad, I wonder if his racing days are over?
0
Comments
Pretty bad break. Barbaro and Derek were pretty much locks for win and place. Goes to show what can happen.
Reminds me of Ruffian(?) some years ago in the match race against ????, Seattle Slew maybe. The filly went down and they euthanized her right on the track and buried her in the infield.
Belmont right?
Seem to recall another racing tragedy at the Breeder's Cup about a decade ago when Go For Wand went down in a thrilling stretch run against Bompago (or something like that.....damn memory!).
Eyebone
Simple fact of the matter is that Matz overtrained that horse and ought to be ashamed of himself. The horse was obviously stiff warming up from only two weeks rest after a grueling training regimen for the Kentucky Derby. Then after he broke through the gate that horse should have definitely, DEFINITELY, been scratched. "He took a bad step" the announcers said - BS...that horse wasn't 100% fit going in, and pure greed and bad judgement caused the trainer to run the horse. And of course the bettors as usual get screwed again and again...which is just one reason why I don't gamble anymore.
<< <i>Is it just me or is the possibility of the triple crown the only press horse racing gets nowadays? >>
Essentially yes. NBC has tried to promote a series of horse races later in the year (I don't remember what they call it at the moment)
but it has never really caught on with the public and only appeals to a small niche of hard core horse racing fans.
After the Kentucky Derby there is always the possibility of a triple crown, if the winner of the Derby races in the Preakness and wins
then the coverage really gets overwhelming leading up to the Belmont.
The Belmont will be getting much less media attention this year of course.
but it has never really caught on with the public and only appeals to a small niche of hard core horse racing fans.
I remember now, it is called "The Breeders Cup". The reaction from the general public has been pretty much "ho hum".
<< <i>Is it just me or is the possibility of the triple crown the only press horse racing gets nowadays? >>
That's about it. As Michigan said the Breeder's Cup gets some press coverage but it is not nearly as much as the Kentucky Derby and the winner having a possibility of the Triple Crown. The press of course is all about ratings and because gambling is so readily available in other ways now, whereby years ago horse racing was one of the biggest outlets for gambling, most people, even many gamblers, don't really care about horse racing, so the press doesn't care about horse racing.
If it wasn't for racinos and other ways of supporting horse racing, many horse racetracks would be closed by now, probably well over 50%. The only thing keeping these tracks alive besides that, is a hard-core group of addicted gamblers that frequently patronize the horse racetracks thinking they are handicappers when every single one of them actually is simply a pathetic losing gambler. All gambling industry operated activities are pathetic money losers for gamblers with horse race betting probably being the most pathetic because of the average huge 20% house takeout of each pari-mutuel pool which usually results in a quick death to any bankroll.
<< <i>The Breeder's Cup has never really caught on the way they had hoped. It's also the worst possible betting day of the year because the races are extremely competitive which makes them absurdly difficult to handicap. That's not good for a sport that relys on the gambling aspect of it to be successful. >>
And a 1-2 favorite braking down on national TV doesn't help either. Of course the hard-core addicts minutes later will be right back at it handicapping and betting the next race.
The biggest problem with horse racing is they're basically still operating it the way they did many years ago when they had a virtual monopoly on legal betting in the United States. They didn't need to do that much to get gamblers out to the track. Gambling has changed dramatically in the last twenty years, especially because of the internet. One of the most important things any track could do for their customers is lower the takeout to at least give the bettors some chance of winning that day. With 15-22% taken from the WPS pools and 17-31% taken from the exotic pools, this is such a quick pathetic death to a bankroll. All gambling industry games grind out the bettor's bankrolls in the long-run but the ones with the most success such as casinos, have low house edges on some games. For example if the Breeder's Cup would lower their takeout that day to say 10% on all bets, I would imagine the revenue and profits for that day for horse racing would be greater. But those who run horse racing are too stubborn to change and that will eventually sooner or later be the death of most racetracks in the United States.
When computers get more sophisticated and video is readily accessible in the same way as a TV set, and they'll be live video action of card games, dice games, and most other gambling events, virtually nobody will bother with horse racing anymore - only the major tracks such as Belmont, Santa Anita, Gulfstream, etc will remain open. For example, you'll be able to sit at your computer screen, while a live action roller at a real craps table rolls the dice and you can gamble away your money accordingly by typing in your bets. A dealer will deal from a real deck of cards and a moniter will read your cards for you and you'll play against other players almost like sitting at your home game. How is horse racing going to compete against that with their horrendous 20% average takeouts? The fact is they won't be able to...again except for the very biggest tracks that will be forced to eventually lower their takeouts and purses to survive.