Kentucky Derby Bets

• Con_Alma

  No doubt. That horse's days will be nothing but feeding and mating.
• gut

  OSH;1623724 wrote:California Chrome's owners will make major dollars off of stud fees. Good for them. California Chrome will be one lucky horse many times over again.

  One article said it will have to establish some reputation as a stud before it draws big fees....something like $50k to start. I don't know if that's typical or it is because of the humble bloodlines.
• dlazz

  Con_Alma;1623725 wrote:No doubt. That horse's days will be nothing but feeding and mating.

  That's basically how my days go too.
• gut

  Very average winning time...You tied for 4th....Shut-up and go home.
• QuakerOats

  Wonder how much Chrome's injured hoof (at the start of the race) affected his ability.
• QuakerOats

  ou1980;1623553 wrote:Who cares if it's always been that way. You should have to have raced in the first two races to race at Belmont. And I'm saying this as a arm-chair horse race viewer, meaning I watch two races a year. Only until this year did I realize that horses don't have to compete in the first to races to race at Belmont. And that's messed up.

  
  Definitely a point. In reality, the 3 races are the 'playoffs' of horse racing, and perhaps you (the horses) need to be in the playoffs when the playoffs start. I mean, the Indians don't get to show up in the World Series without advancing through the playoffs, and the Cavs and Browns don't get to go straight to the Finals or Super Bowl to play a team beaten up during the previous playoff rounds.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1624492 wrote:Definitely a point. In reality, the 3 races are the 'playoffs' of horse racing, and perhaps you (the horses) need to be in the playoffs when the playoffs start. I mean, the Indians don't get to show up in the World Series without advancing through the playoffs, and the Cavs and Browns don't get to go straight to the Finals or Super Bowl to play a team beaten up during the previous playoff rounds.

  But racing in all three races was never a requirement. I don't know horse racing at all. But obviously there are some reasons why you would want your horse in only one or two of the races. These three races weren't created in conjunction with one another. It seems like the triple crown was an idea that came after the fact, attempting to tie the three together. But that may not be important to individual owners. It'd be like a golfer who played in the Masters every year and none of the other majors because they weren't important to him. He'd be ineligible for the grand slam, and he wouldn't appear to care.
• GOONx19

  

  The comments saying horses should have to race in all 3 is stupid. Horse racing is not a struggling pasttime. If you want to win a Triple Crown, win all 3 races against whoever shows up. If I was the owner of a distance horse who wants to make money off of the Belmont, I'd be pissed if you told me I have to pay short track entrance fees. There is no reason for it. Again, these races are not partnered together in any way.
• queencitybuckeye

  Did Coburn bitch about the horses that didn't run the Derby after winning the Preakness? If not, he's a hypocrite and a sore loser, and should STFU.