I've been waiting since Saturday, along with many others, for the official word on why Big Brown performed so poorly in the Belmont Stakes. I am (as are many others, I'm sure) relieved to know that it wasn't because of the repair to the quarter crack on his hoof; nor that it was because he did not get the Winstrol steroid shot he normally would have received on May 15th (no signs of internal bleeding or other respiratory distress).
I am not, however (unlike many others) mystified as to the probable cause of Big Brown's comedown. He most probably simply didn't like running in the heat. The track temperature at race time was 93° according to the race telecast. This was at 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. All afternoon, horses were being given toddler-sized ice packs immediately after completing their races and being unsaddled. I've never seen that before--anywhere at any time, let alone at Belmont Park in early June. Just as some people feel more energetic in the heat and others wilt, some horses run better in the heat and others wilt. Big Brown wilted. He certainly was unhappy about something--he'd been acting much more fractious than usual all day, and it was easy to see he was sweating even before the race began. [Frankly, I can't blame him. I don't like the heat, either. Nor do I function well in hot weather. I just don't buck and kick. Much.--Ed.]
After all, as Occam's Razor posits, the simplest explanation in line with all the facts is usually the correct one. No other cause was uncovered. No one connected with the horse or the track has said anything about the heat NOT adversely affecting Big Brown. The heat is the one factor at Belmont that Big Brown never otherwise faced. Therefore the heat is most probably what "done him in." Let's hope that Big Brown's connections figure that out and that the horse's future value is not diminished. He didn't win the Triple Crown, but he's no slouch. Whether one assesses his value in terms of future stud fees or in terms of his rekindling popular interest in the sport of kings, Big Brown deserves our applause.
2 comments:
I'm not sure I believe what is being told to us about the repair to the quarter crack on the hoof of Big Brown. I'm wondering if they would actually tell us they ran Big Brown when he was not physically able, after what happened to Eight Belles.
I've grown up with enough friends who owned horses to find the quarter crack repair story credible. That wasn't the problem.
I also think that what heppened to Eight Belles was a terrible, terrible, unforeseeable tragedy. If you look at the bloodlines of modern thoroughbreds, you'll find the same sires and dams in the backgrounds of both the sire and dam of nearly each and every horse currently running. Such inbreeding (because that in effect is what it is) makes the already fragile legs of race horses even more susceptible to damage.
I am of a mind to accept the word of Big Brown's connections that they wouldn't have run him had he been injured--after all, his long-term value is as a stud. If he were to suffer a catastrophic injury that required he be put down, all that future revenue disappears.
What I cannot abide is that Big Brown's trainer is now blaming the jockey. Yet he's willing to let the same jockey ride Big Brown again in the up-coming Travers Stakes. That is what makes no sense to me. It's a much simpler and logical explanation to blame the extraordinarily high heat on Big Brown's troubles during the Belmont Stakes.
Post a Comment