No Triple Crown - I'll Have Another is Out at the Belmont (Injury)
 

According to DP show.

Sad to hear this.

Peyton's Head ‏@PeytonsHead
I'll Have Another officially out of the Belmont. Sarah Jessica Parker moves to 7-2 odds.

Shame

Would have been weird to have a Triple Crown winner with a shady trainer, anyhow.

Affirmed in front.

Really disappointing news. I thought we were going to see a TC winner.

Part of me wonders if that doesn't play into this somehow. Like they know the scrutiny after winning the triple crown may bring something from the past into play but as of right now the horse is just a 2-time big race winner with some major stud money coming.

And it looks like Secretariat's record will still stand. No horse has come within 2 seconds of his 1973 run.

And NBC just took a huge ratings hit.

The chances of me watching the Belmont now is somewhere around 0%

As did the horse racing industry in general.

NBC suddenly cuts away from showing Belmont to showing hockey. People's heads explode.

"Zach Parise is moving like a tremendous machine!"

Quik - you pop the cork yet?

This.

Now that the Mets pitched a (very tainted) no hitter, not having a Triple Crown winner in X years is the dumbest active streak in sports.

I guess it's good that this Greg Anderson trained horse won't win

:rolleyes:

If the chalk was hit you must acquit.

Fixed.

affirmative

Don't you mean Affirmed? :)

Shame. A real shame. This one looked like it had a good chance too.

This deserves some love.

fixed

From the Wall Street Journal this morning:

So, WSJ guy, let me see if I've got this right... horse has an injury in a part of the physiology that is undeniably strained massively by racing at all, much less at distances so long they are considered archaic... and you're going to attack the connections for pulling him out of the race. Do I have that right? As long as you are always on the same side of that particular non-debate, I guess I can accept that... but this sure sounds like a response to "go make up a convoluted argument that helps support why this sports weekend sucked."

Ya, I think he's saying that trying to keep a horse alive instead of going for the glory is an unacceptable "business" decision because the horse will make everyone money as a stud, but needs to be alive to do so.

Why is Quick happy? I'm confused.

It's almost like you read the whole back page.

I know it is a different circumstance*, but my mind linked this to what looks like the very likely scenario which has the Nats in contention come late summer/fall, having repeatedly vowed to shut Stephen Strasburg down once he reaches 160 IP, standings be damned.


* read: not possibly life-or-death