In midst of my misery waiting for my most expensive dental appointment ever, I got suckered into watching the Belmont Stakes. It's the first Triple Crown race I have watched in years (I just get too caught up), and of course I was slightly disappointed that Big Brown didn't win--even a little afraid afterwards that he would get tossed out with the trash.
Here's what I think not that it's worth anything. The 3 races are too close together--space them further apart and isn't there some way to keep spoilers who didn't race in the first two, from coming in all dewy and winning the Belmont--of course spacing the races out further would solve that problem somewhat. Racing is a crap shoot and sometimes horses are temperamental, which bring up my second idea--why can't these horse be allowed to grow up a bit more and be a little more seasoned--why race as 3 years olds as opposed to 5 year olds (might have helped out Eight Belles and Barbaro). This kind of bring me back to the temperamental part--it was 95 or so out there on race day and Big Brown probably had never raced in that kind of heat. He got pissed off and mad. Dutrow wasn't happy with how the jockey jerked Big Brown around to change positions and in doing so bumped Anak Nakal--which might have ticked the horse off especially after haivng been boxed in by the other horses up in front.
Sometimes a horse just doesn't want to cooperate. Of course there are some out there that thought Dutrow had just gotten a bit too cocky and the Fates decided against him. I don't think it was being off the steroids that made Big Brown lose; after all, he had been off of them even before the Preakness.