I've been watching the Triple Crown races for the past month, and as like many , I was caught up in the Big Brown craze. I was talking to my stepdad, and he said there hasn't been this much media buzz since Secretariat made his successful attempt at Triple Crown glory.
After all the controversy that has arisen since the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes, all it would take is a win by Big Brown in the Belmont Stakes to make the sport of horse racing popular again. As I was watching the 1 ½ mile race, I pretty much knew a win by Big Brown was not going to happen, and it left more questions than answers.
It's very easy to point fingers and make excuses. Even I have questions as to why the jockey stopped riding the horse when the field turned for home, or was the fact that he didn't use the steroid, Winstrol, the reason he gave such a poor performance. But instead of trying to lay blame and pulling gray hairs, could it possibly be the reason Big Brown lost is because of what jockey Kent Desormeaux said, that he had “no horse”?
My thing is this: I've been watching the horses since 1981, when I frequented Hollywood Park and Santa Anita. And even the best horses have their bad days, just like star quarterbacks in the NFL have an occasional bad game. And it's not fair for Big Brown---or any talented horse---to face a bunch of media scrutiny as to why he turned in a bad performance like he's not supposed to turn in one every once in a while.
It's true that Big Brown will face a big hit financially when his racing career is over because of stud fees. While a dollar amount cannot be placed yet, If he returns to the races for the sole purpose to recoup any financial losses from losing the Belmont, then shame on the whole horse racing and breeding industry
