2014 Belmont Stakes - Tonalist + Post Race 

Earl Forte Exactly! Plus Tonalist's owner Robert Evans got vindication for the loss that Pleasant Colony had to go through in the 1980s at the Belmont. Joel Rosario got his first Belmont win as well. And Christophe Clement, who is a really awesome guy, gained recognition too. A lot of positive things happened that day. Eventually turns out that Steve Coburn couldn't even get along with Perry Martin, the man who did all the work. Coburn kept pouting, and he stressed out Art Sherman to the point where a new corporation had to be formed to deal with the stress.

Ok. What's your point?

Irrelevant comment

This same conversation WAS going on in 1972 and earlier. They just didn't have the variety of media outlets to openly discuss it. Also in the old days not near as many people cared about horse racing period. I asked some older very intelligent general sports enthusiast to name some horses and they all said Secretariat, Affirmed, and Barbaro. They did mention other horses like Strike the Gold and Cigar but bottom line they couldn't list many and only mentioned three of the same horses between them (not counting CC). Looking at the film of Secretariat at the Belmont, it looks like the entire and all be it small field all ran the first two legs. So Coburn does have a point.

Dave EvenMoreDave Wrong. The same conversation was NOT going on during those years. The vast majority of horse racing fans back then actually understood the sport, understood the Triple Crown, and were not the type of over-indulged, self-absorbed moron that is so sadly prevalent today. Thus there were many people discussing and speculating about the reasons for the long Triple Crown drought, but very few pissing and moaning about how the rules should be changed to make the Triple Crown easier to accomplish. And you think you can "look" at replays of the 1973 Belmont and conclude that all the other horses also ran both the Derby and the Preakness? LMAO, ridiculous. Here are the FACTS... Of the four horses that ran against Secretariat in that 1973 Belmont, only one (Sham) had also run both the Derby and the Preakness. Of the other three, TWO had skipped the Preakness (Twice a Prince, My Gallant) and ONE had skipped both the Derby and the Preakness (Private Smiles). Therefore those THREE horses were "fresher" than Secretariat. Secretariat blew that field away - including the very great Sham - because he was a far superior race horse. It matters not who you talked to or what horses they mentioned. The simple fact is that since the last Triple Crown was won by Affirmed in 1978, there have been many great horses - better than California Chrome - who were either not quite great enough or simply had bad luck, and as a result failed to close the deal in the Belmont. Btw, "all be it" is incorrect. It's a single word... ALBEIT.

news4usunshine Umm ok, thanks for clearing it up. I wasn't attacking Secretariat's achievements. Oh and thanks for the grammar clarification, I learn something new everyday. You are wrong about people not talking about horses with more rest in the 70's, 80's and forever. I have been around the track and horses my whole life and have listened to old timers say exactly what Coburn said many times. So it does matter who I talk to so I can "actually understand the sport and understand the Triple Crown and not be an over indulged or a self absorbed moron." You may not have ever heard it or blasted anyone who dared mention it but that doesn't mean its not happening. Thanks for the handy lineup info for those races though!

WELL SAID!

FMNelly Specifically, what drugs or "tonics" are you referring to? What were their effects on the horse? What PEDs were not tested for in the 1970's but were tested for in later decades? What newer PEDs were available to trainers in later decades that were not available in the 1970's? You don't know the answers to any of these questions, so your claims about drug use are unsubstantiated nonsense.

Sham was injured in the Belmont, that jockey saved that horse.

Quarter grab from the outside horse. Minor injury. To me looked like they were rushing to get him back to his barn.

Art Sherman described the wond as "superficial" and one that would heal in two weeks. Why should anyone watch the video when the trainer talked to the vet and the vet said the wound was minor.

Thank you, I thought I was the only one who knew this. CC deserved to win.

Seen 2 in last 5 yrs haven't we??

Sunday .Silence should have won all 3

Belmont is a different Animal! That race track 1.5 miles is for a MONSTER

The man is right u r talking a pile of puss to be in belmond steaks all horse should have been take part in all three races

I agree with what you're saying, but think you may be misunderstanding how the horse(s) qualify to be in these races.

Yes, each of the 3 races are separate, but ALL 3 races are a part of the "Triple Crown" series. I agree, if a horse didn't even qualify for the KD, they should NOT be allowed to race in either of the next 2 "triple Crown" races. Tonalist didn't qualify for the KD, therefore, he should NOT have been allowed to race in only the Belmont.

I disagree. Just because a horse does not qualify for the Kentucky Derby does not mean it should ruin the entire racing season. Only 20 horses "in effect" qualify for the KD. I fully understand that if one of the top 20 money winners does not enter, then you move down the money winner list. 3YO If memory serves Tonalist won 2 of 3 and finished 2nd in the other, before contracting an infection of some sort. Which kept him out of the KD prep races. IMO, it would be more "unfair" to say, well sorry, your horse got sick, tough luck you can't run in any of the big races this year. TC - I prefer the way it's done, and don't see any changes being made. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Triple Crown races consist of 3 races at 3 tracks in 5 weeks. These are a series of races combined to give one horse a "triple Crown" title. Yes, they are each of different lengths, but they ARE part of a series of races for the title. These races are considered the "Triple Crown Races".

The Triple Crown is not a race by itself. It's only a title for a special horse that can win all THREE back to back races. So the old man is wrong. Each race is officially a separate race and are not run as a group to cater to the title of Triple Crown race. That's what makes the LABEL "Triple Crown" very special. It's reserved for a horse that does not only win the top horse races consecutively, but it is reserved for a horse that can against fresh horses at the same time win all three. The old man totally missed the point of the "Triple Crown" title. The Triple Crown is neither a race, nor a tournament of races. It's just a special label for a special horse that can win all three ESPECIALLY against even fresh horses. The old man is a sore loser and totally did not understand the meaning of "Triple Crown Winner".

Dan Denali You are accurate in your assessment. However, consider this. Why aren't trainers entering their horse into the Kentucky Derby if they beleive their horse is superior? Why do they avoid the first two legs of the triple crown possibility? It has the appearance of using the schedueling of 3 races in a very short time to beat horses that under "normal" conditions, they would not have a chance. I understand the old man's lament. The fact that they are 3 separate races and not a tournament of races, belies the fact that for all appearances, it is a tournament. It is set up, 3 major races for 3 year olds, all within 6 weeks, at different distances and different tracks. Those races are meant to create a Tournament effect. The fresh horse has a distinct advantage. In any other stakes race, I would not make this issue. But, when trainers purposely avoid the first two legs of those races to beat the favorite, it is kind of "wormy". It's perceived as unfair by many. If Tonalist beats CC regularly in future races, I will be happy to admit he is a better horse, but until then, I tend to agree with the old man. I understand your point, but something about this just seems to lack fairness.

Ricksmooth1947 "Lack fairness"?? LOL You just continue to demonstrate your ignorance about horse racing. Some horses are competitive only at the shorter distance (Derby). Some are competitive only at the longer distance (Belmont). Some horses have an advantage if the track is dry and fast. Some horses have an advantage if the track is muddy and slow. All of these horses have trainers and owners who would be ecstatic winning just one of the three "Triple Crown" races, each one of which is highly prestigious by itself. Those trainers and owners position their horse so that he has the best chance to do that. Often that means running that horse in only one of the races. You would change the rules and deprive that horse of his chance to win one of the races, just to make it easier for the occasional exceptional horse to win all three. Sorry, no matter how much all you noobs whine and cry, they are not going to change the rules to cheapen the "Triple Crown" title. You also demonstrate your ignorance about tournaments. In a tournament, competitors progress to the next round based on their performance in the previous round. The three "Triple Crown" races have never comprised a tournament by any measure. "Triple Crown winner" has always been nothing more than an honorary title bestowed on any horse that can win all three, each of which is an entirely separate race with its own title and its own prestige.

Secretariat won against fresh horses after a 25 year dry spell. It's hard, but not impossible, that's just the way it goes. The rules have been this way since the triple crown's inception. I love Chrome, he's a great horse, I think his performance is amazing considering he had an injury just out the gate

Sarah P Correction: Sham, Secretariat's main rival , ran all three races and was the Derby and Preakness runner-up.

G.D. I One of the reasons.

How did the jockey not know it. He simply said he didn't have the energy he usually did and several people--including Jerry Baily--said he looked too calm in the post parade and the gate. You're fishing. There was a french three year old colt named Bering who lost the Arc de Triomphe to one of Europe's greatest horses, Dancing Brave, by 1 1/2 lenghts when he broke his knee in the stretch and the jockey only sensed that he began drifting out down the lane. There's no way you can know from watching a replay what Espinosa couldn't feel during the race.

John Carpenter I also thought the owners and trainers of Smarty Jones and others were very gracious and acknowledged all they had already achieved in the Derby and Preakness graciously congratulating the winners. Thats how it should be done.

news4usunshine I thought California Chrome looked almost tired or like a dud even before the race started. Even the commentator said he looked too calm. The triple crown is so hard and this Belmont is definitely a real test of a racehorses fortitude.

Lisa Shoko Tatsuno I had two thoughts. First, from the Santa Anita Derby throught the Preakness he had the tactical speed to sit behind "cheap speed"--horses that could set down a modest pace but not stay past a mile. As soon as they began to back up CC merely inherited the lead and there were no genuine Grade1 horses behind him withthe class to run him down. Second, if you saw the Peter Pan Stakes and heard Art Sherman's comment after the post position draw, you could make a case the race was already lost. Sherman said CC would save ground (take the rail). The problem was there were at least two opponents that had the early speed to grab the lead and Tonalist had the speed to stay just outside of CC. this meant that Tonalist would get the first run around the turn and CC would have to go outside of him--which is exactly what happened. In this race, however, there WERE two horses that had the class to stay a classic distance even with a legitimate pace, they didn't back up at the top of the stretch, and CC could not run them down. One more thing: CC was on the rail in the first turn and Commissioner inside on the final turn. Tonalist was five or six wide into the first and four wide into the second. He lost TONS of ground and that close finish was deceptive. His win was much more dominating than it appears.

John Carpenter what also concerns me is that these horses that are being bred for speed have these fine bones for less weight to carry but break more easily. It just breaks my heart to see greats like Ruffian and Barbaro break down and be euthanized. I know Citation was probably the most durable horse of all to be raced to the million dollar stakes mark. Just at what point do horse breeders decide speed over durability. I couldn't watch a horse race for 3 yrs after Barbaro broke down.

You're ignoring the fact that CC was inside on the first turn while Tonalist was six wide. CC was also on the rail until the 5/8th's pole where he swung out and was just one path more off the rail than Tonalist. Put another way, Tonalist was about six wide on the first turn and three wide on the final turn. CC didn't lose any ground on the first turn but went four wide on the second turn. Consequently, Tonalist lost a total of seven lengths on two turns and CC, three. You're only seeing what you want to see to give CC yet another excuse--but we'll see at the end of the year when hopefully both face older horses just how good each is.

Wow another excuse for California Chrome?yea really lol ? I didn't even bet on the horse my man.., my exacta was Tonalist with Wicked Strong by the way... I was giving my opinion of the race, and I ll tell you this again the first and the second turn is not as important as that last, unending sweeping last turn of Belmont, specially when it comes to positioning....but I see what you are saying...it was of course a fair race, I was just thinking if cali chrome dived inside going into the last turn instead of outside?i just think that things and or the result could have been better for the horse, that's all....

You just got the best comment that I have ever seen! My most sincerely compliments..

You do know that he got stepped on tour part of his hoof off right? I bet if part of your foot got tore off by someone you wouldn't be able to walk or even run fast or far either. So don't be bashing on him and calling him a ordinary horse. When tonalist is NOTHING special AT ALL!

go eat horse hockey

He got stepped on!!! Everybody knows that he could of got the distance geez!

Thing is that cc isn't rich, or at least he wasn't until these races.

Correctomundo...You got it right!

The Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes are restricted to 3 year olds. Every horse has ONE potential shot at them. The total number of racing years a horse has is irrelevant. The three races are not tied together in any way. They are completely separate, and winning any one of them is a huge accomplishment for any horse.

The Belmont is a tough track; he could've wasted all Chrome's energy pushing for the lead early, then have no go at the end. Like one of the announcers said 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.'

Sarah P Agreed!

You get a mulligan for the analogy, but it did remind me that Tiger's a horse's ass.

Ummm.....in 1973 Sham ran dead last in the Belmont...check it out.

Joey Simpson He was 2nd. in the Derby and Preakness but last in the Belmont after he went head to head with BiG Red for the first mile. I believe second that day was Twice A Prince actually.

No, he's completely wrong. The Triple Crown rules have never required all horses to run in all three races. Every Triple Crown winner in history had to win the Preakness and the Belmont against horses that had not run in all three races. In fact EVERY thoroughbred race pits horses that have raced recently against other horses that are more rested. That's just the reality of horse racing. And you and Mr. Poor Loser Coburn want to change the rules now to make it easier to win the Triple Crown? Not gonna happen.

news4usunshine I do feel there should be 4 weeks between races but to say you have to run in all 3 is silly

news4usunshine I understand your point, but consider this. Let's assume the Triple Crown races are meant to be a trilogy. In most sports, this is what you have. A baseball World Series pits the two top teams in a 7 game series. The same thing with the NBA and the Super Bowl in football. Horses run in races when they are ready to run. They require "rehab" between races. The Triple Crown event pushes horses that have run against the top competition, usually away from their "home ground" requiring travel and then, within a very short in between period, races again at a different track, requiring travel and lacking the time to "rehab" in between races. Finally, the Belmont, at a mile and a half, it pushes the horse to limits that horses cannot handle. Along comes a fresh horse that has not had any prior challenges and gets to challenge a California Chrome who has been "at war". A trainer, if he so desires, can rest his horse preparing ONLY for the Belmont, to upset a Triple Crown possibility. There is something that is NOT fair about that situation. Maybe, a rule could be created that limits fresh horses only to the Preakness, but not to the Belmont for horses who have already run two tough races. Or, another possibility is to make the fresh horse be given extra weight. My point is that the way the Triple Crown is set up now, a fresh horse, (that is inferior) gets to upset a superior horse. Any superior athlete that is challenged and not given a chance to recuperate can lose to a weaker opponent that is fresh. I am not saying I am the authority on what is right and wrong, but it is a topic for discussion and consideration.

Ricksmooth1947 Everything you've said is true, but my point is that over the entire history of the Triple Crown it's ALWAYS been true. When Secretariat won the TC in 1973, it had been 25 years since the last winner. They didn't change the rules then, they should not change them now. The TC is supposed to be very difficult for a horse to win. That's precisely what makes it special and exciting to follow. And there's also this... the longer the current drought goes, the more attention the TC races will get. Based on that fact alone, they're not about to change the rules.

I would have to agree with you. CC is no Secretariat. My thought/objection was that a lesser horse could beat a superior horse due to the conditions that are set up for the TC. Yes, historically, that has been the way it is. I am only suggesting that maybe, the only horses who can compete in the Preakness must first run in the KD and for anyone to run in the Belmont, they must have also run in the Preakness. Just a thought. My complaint is that the TC conditions make it possible for a lesser horse to beat a superior horse. So, theoretically, I suggest that given a match race between Tonalist and CC, that CC would always win. Could I be wrong? Perhaps.

he is right about what he is saying totally 100 percent right

news4usunshine He isn't 100 percent wrong. There are others in the industry who have thought the same thing but never said anything. Anyway, let him have his opinion. I for one am not going to judge him from this incident because we don't know the man.

Chrome's owner has no argument. Any person that knows about horse racing knows this is a fact. I never heard Secretariat, Seattle Slew or Affirmed's owners demanding that only the horses that ran in the derby can only run in the other races. It didn't matter who stepped into the gate, they beat them point blank this is a race, the object is to win not to lose then complain that the competition was too fresh..By the way here is a question. What happened to losing with class?

Then where were these complaints before the race?

***** I agree. However I don't agree that it was the wrong time or childish. Look this is a business and one horse actually can give employment to upwards of 10 or more people. So you have your business that mostly plays out on a WORLDWIDE television stage that happens to be one of the most competitive sports on the planet. Add in a full staff of employees and I can understand wanting some changes. If CC had ran against the same exact field in each leg of the TC his accomplishment would be no less than any previous TC winner. The playing field would be level, all horses on the same rest. It would still take the ONE special horse of the whole lot to win them all.

LVCrocky Please tell everyone where you get your money from What is your source of income Rocky ? you don't work ..you gamble & bet on horses & sporting events but lik everyone , you ust have a source of income ..so what is it if its NOT welfare from the state ? Your probably on Parole ..I bet you cant leave the State with out permission huh ? Your just a pathetic troll with NO friends or no life ...just a pathetic existence & you crave attention because you don't do anything good to get any so you resort to worshipping(supporting) a convicted Murderer ..that tells everyone that you are socially retarded & who knows ..have you ever been convicted of a sex crime Rocky ? why cant you like normal women ? why would you be in love with a Killer named Hodi Ariass ? Maybe because you are exactly like her ..a stalker .. a sexual deviant ..a criminal ..a misfit who contributes nothing & is a burden on society & preys on vulnerable people & takes advantage of trusting people& you probably steal from Churches every Sunday & probably mug old ladies or roll helpless people who are in wheel chairs ...and you shouldnt threaten to blow people away with shot guns Rocky ...didn't you say that you wanted to kill me ? You are sick and everyone knows it !!

***** No troll I'm not on parole. I can go anywhere I want and do so. I'm not on the no fly list. what do u do 4 a living? betting and handicapping is work. aint no free rides. many hours per week and many years of experience. Winning is hard work also sports I find a bit easier then the ponies. I have a much higher win % and overall profit from sports then horses. the key is discipline and using proper money management. that's the toughest of them all. a couple weeks ago I had a big loss at the track so I took a break. u have 2 know when 2 back off. the worse thing u can do is chase. came off a great football season 1 of the best ever but did lose the super bowl with Seattle had them at a pk vs N.E. inside the 1 yrd line 26 seconds left in game 1 time out remaining u have the best powerback in the game in Lynch and instead of giving him the ball they pass ball gets intercepted should of never passed in that situation let a lone that specific pass call. the d.b. made a great play 4 N.E. and saved the game 4 them. it happens. I was 26-6 for the year. as far as Jod goes my support 4 her will remain. no plans 2 back off of that.

I have to agree that JDB is full of it. As a rider, JD studied the racing form, and always got his horses the best trips. Had he been riding CC, the horse more than likely would win wire to wire, even with the injury. Listen to NBC's call of the race, and ask yourself; how does CC go from "going for the lead along the rail" to being four wide around that long sweeping Belmont curve. And the horse lost by just two lenghts!

Ricksmooth1947, CC was beaten by a superior horse. Tonalist won two 9F races, finished 2nd & 4th in 8.5F and 8F races in his fist 4 starts. CC won a 4.5F & 5.5F races and finished 2nd in a 5.5f and off the board in 4.5F in his first 4 stars. CC finished 6th in his graded stakes debut whereas Tonaloist won his graded stakes debut over a distance 2F longer. He has proven to be a much classier horse than CC without a doubt.

Tonalist had a good month to recuperate. Time will tell how good that horse is. When they race against each other again, I suspect CC will win handily.

Kerry Pal CC got stepped on by Matterhorn at the start, he pulled off a good part of his hoof, he was limping and in pain coming back to the barn (go watch the video on bloodhorse and read Steve Haskin twitter)

Alecramsay1227 Steve Haskin is a friend of mine. I know him quite well but he's not a trainer or vet. Art Sherman on your assertion he "pulled off a good part of his hoof": "He had a cut by his tendon where they hit him. That's what scared me the most. It wasn't deep; it was superficial." Superficial: "Affecting only the outer part or surface of something : not deep or serious."

Ricksmooth1947 I suspect you still haven't faced the reality of what occurred Saturday. A lightly raced, relatively inexperienced colt making his fifth start won the Belmont after going six wide on the first turn and five wide on the second while California Chrome skimmed the rail on the first turn and was merely one path outside of Tonalist with a quarter of a mile to run. IF they meet again it will be in the Breeder's Cup. California Chrome is not likely to return to New York and you're already predicting the outcome. You're good.

Isabelle Nguyen Coburn is just sore, it's part of the gig now, he and everyone else knows what your up against. You might not agree, but don't be a baby about it after it doesn't end well for you, dude has no class. I disagree with your grandpa, there will be another triple crown winner, it will take an exceptional horse, but it's not impossible by no means. Smarty Jones just about shut up all these cry babies talking about it's not fair, it took a heroic effort by Birdstone to catch Smarty Jones in the stretch and he won by barely a length, Birdstone along with other horses were " rested " on that day, but Smarty Jones didn't look like it phased him at all, so yes there will be another triple crown winner, in time. BTW Smarty Jones was a smaller horse, but when he raced he was King Kong. There's another special horse coming, believe it.

+Isabelle Nguyen and now you gave been proven wrong.

How many wins do you have a s a jockey? Jerry Bailey has 5,893 and he said Espinosa rode him just fine, thank you. The first and last time California Chrome dictated the pace was in the San Felipe in March. He won his next three sitting off of the speed and waiting for them to spit the bit. I bet you didn't have a problem with those rides did you? But when he loses, it was a bad ride. How predictable.