Re: Comments on Real Quiet

[Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>]

What!!!! GIVE the Triple Crown to Real Quiet because he was second?  Hey, this is
NOT an endurance ride where "To Finish is ot Win" means a damn thing,  We was
beat fair and square and to be commended for his effort, but to GIVE him the
Triple Crown?  This (at the risk of staring flames...well I'll be gone for two
weeks anyway...have at it) is as bad as 25 milers calling themselves "endurance
riders"!!!

Teddy


Trishmare@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Joe,
>     Did you get a chance to see the Belmont Stakes yesterday?  What a
> horserace!!!  Wow!  Real Quiet and his people lost the TRIPLE CROWN by a
> single bob of another horse's head.  Heartbreaker.  You know, I got thinking
> about this, and I think they should've given Real Quiet the Triple Crown
> anyways.  He was so close, and just think how BADLY it must have made his
> owners feel to lose when they did everything they were supposed to do.  It
> isn't their fault that Victory Gallop was the better horse/rider team that
> day, if only by a nose.
>     In fact, I think that every single horse/rider team who showed up for all
> three races should get the Triple Crown.  I mean, it isn't their fault that
> other people have more time, better horses, better equipment, more money or
> what have you, and thus a better shot at owning a "Triple Crown Winner."  I
> mean, it just isn't FAIR!!!!!  Not everyone can have Lucas or Baffert for a
> trainer, not everyone can spend $100,000 for a yearling, not everyone can
> devote their every minute to getting their pony ready for the Derby . . .but
> their heart is in it, and they would have all that if they could.  Why should
> their efforts get less reward???  Not fair . . . I'm gonna write the racing
> commission, and tell them that from now on EVERYONE who shows up and runs a
> horse in the Derby, Preakness, and Belmont should be acknowledged a TRIPLE
> CROWN WINNER.  Of course, the designation would then become meaningless, but
> hey . . . so what?  At least more people could say they owned a Triple Crown
> Winner.  That is what is important . . . isn't it?
>
> Trish & "pretty David"
> Grand Blanc, Michigan
>
>
> <<
>  >I am so tired of riders whose attitudes toward the limited distance
>  >is, "I walked in snow up to my a__ for my
>  >mileage/buckle/shirt/mug/cap/sponge awards and if you haven't done the
>  >same, you're not *really* an endurance rider.  So stop trying to grow
>  >our exclusive club.  If you succeed in 'diluting' our sport we real
>  >endurance riders might not appear so special."
>
>  Ye Gods, not again!!!!!  How often are we going to hear this same
>  whine?
>
>  OK, answer me this:  if there is "no difference" between 25 and 50
>  miles, if they are both endurance competitions -- then what is the
>  difference between 15 miles and 25 miles?  Between 5 miles and 15
>  miles?  Between one lap around a ring and 5 miles?
>
>  Endurance rides were defined as at least 50 miles per day because the
>  people drawing up the rules and definitions understood that it takes a
>  certain distance to be a test of the endurance of *the horse.*  We
>  don't call our sport "endurance riding" because of the rider's
>  endurance, it is the horse that's being tested.
>
>  Now, just as the other disciplines like jumping, dressage, eventing,
>  even competitive trail riding have their entry-level classes, so does
>  the sport of endurance riding.  We call ours Limited Distance.
>
>  I wonder if the people competing in the entry-level classes of these
>  other sports also demand *equal* recognition with the Open, Grand Prix
>  or whatever classes in their disicplines?
>
>  I reject the notion that people are turned off from becoming endurance
>  riders by our calling our Limited Distance program Limited Distance.
>  Why should anyone be turned off by the entry-level program of any
>  discipline being identified as such?  Why do some people demand
>  "instant accolades" without being willing to put in the time and
>  effort to learn the sport and advance to the levels that bring such?
>
>  There is a way available for anyone who wants the recognition of being
>  an *endurance* rider to do so:  complete a fifty mile endurance ride.
>  But there seems to be no end to those who want to talk the talk,
>  without having to walk the walk.  They want it on the cheap.
>
>  Please understand that I'm not talking about all Limited Distance
>  riders.  Not everyone wants to ride fifty miles, and if the 25 mile
>  rides satisfy them, fine.  Different strokes for different folks.  And
>  some people (like my wife) have physical handicaps that prevent them
>  from ever riding 50 miles, for whom 25 miles takes a supreme effort.
>  But most of these folks don't want given to them what they are unable
>  or unwilling to earn.  It is those that do that are the problem.
>
>  We've been over this, time and again, for decades.
>  I for one am more than disgusted with it.
>
>  --
>
>  Joe Long >>