|
Grittybeard posted:I'd muted it, what was his point? That it's bullshit to gently caress over
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 2, 2023 08:48 |
|
|
Sucrose posted:But the Triple Crown winners had all beaten new horses in the Belmont, with the same intervals between the three races, those horses were just that much better than the rest of the horses their age. Also if you only allowed horses that competed in all three to race, you'd have like 5 horses left in the Belmont, as every year the owners of a decent portion of the Kentucky Derby field decide afterwards "Nah, my horse really isn't up to this level of competition right now, I think I'll go somewhere softer." I would think that there'd be more carryover into the Preakness & Belmont, under the notion that the field can only get smaller and everyone's equally tired. It would also prevent a horse that gets hurt in the Derby from running the Preakness or Belmont, which is a lovely precedent to set. If you changed the rules so the Triple Crown could be handed out to a horse that wins the Derby & beats all of the Derby competitors that run the Preakness & Belmont even if they don't win those races, that's an option that'd appease the angry multi-millionaire redneck.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 23:37
|
|