Bedbugs and Ballyhoo, Big Brown and Bellyaching

- Pursuant to the last post, and the discussion that follows (including what I believe to be the all-time longest comment in LATG history), I characterized any continued discussion of Dutrow's, and by extension, Big Brown's worthiness in the next three weeks leading up to the Belmont, as "bellyaching," which drew a couple of negative reviews. True, I could have used another word, but I stand by that one and here's why.

I think that we've had a more than thorough discussion of Dutrow's history of suspensions, both leading up to the Derby, and, partly in the context of the Eight Belles breakdown, between races too. I've blasted him here, and on The Rail too (#3), maybe even more for his frivolous attitude towards his suspensions, and the ban he got for brazenly violating the terms of one of them. He also cheerfully admitted to violating suspensions routinely in an interview before the Derby. I think he's a cheater, and it will take a few years of a clean record before I consider the possibility that he's reformed, as he said. Of course, I'd rather that a guy like Michael Matz was Big Brown's trainer.

But at this point, Dutrow's horse, Big Brown, is on the precipice of a historic achievement. He's a really good horse, maybe even a great one. Yes, the competition has been sketchy - I mean, if Big Brown only got a 100 Beyer given how little he really had to exert himself (Gary Stevens likened it to a quarter horse race) - imagine how slow the rest of them are. But I think his two Triple Crown wins have been breathtaking - the Derby for the sheer revelation of his being able to rate and run professionally down the stretch, the Preakness for its sheer ease, and both for the incredible acceleration he displayed when asked by Desormeaux to go (as highlighted by the overhead blimp shots on NBC).

So for me, the story going into the Belmont is the horse. And, I'm finding the continued growling about Dutrow, at this point in time, getting rather shrill. That's not to say that any such discussion that continues despite what I think isn't valid and constructive. But to me, it's just sounding like....well, bellyaching. The horse is the horse, and we have no evidence that he's running on illegal medication. In fact, given the extra scrutiny for these races, and Dutrow's two wins in Dubai where the horses are all closely monitored and tested (ask the owners of Brass Hat), I'm assuming he's not.

As far as the steroids go, in my opinion, that's not a valid discussion with regard to this particular situation, but rather one for the industry as a whole. If the medication is legal, than it's legal. On Friday, ESPN, on their crawl during their telecast, repeated the news of the NY Daily News report that Dutrow was giving Winstrol to his horses every month. But like a lot of stats we see on that network and others, it was presented without context, and is therefore without meaning to me. Was Big Brown the only horse in the Derby running on a steroid? Is he the only triple crown race winner that had been receiving it? I tend to doubt that. Allen Jerkens told Bill Finley last year: "Sure, I use them occasionally. It helps build up muscle and it helps when a horse hasn’t been eating well.” Whenever Jerkens has a horse in a big race, all we hear about (ad nauseum at this point) is why he's a giant killer, never about steroids.

So, I won't be writing about Dutrow's history between now and the Belmont. I'm sure there are some TBA bloggers who disagree - here's one, to start - and, with all the new mainstream media types that will be gravitated towards the Belmont, I'm sure we'll be hearing and reading plenty. So, if you're interested, they'll be plenty of that to read. But I'm done with the discussion, at least until otherwise warranted. We have a possible Triple Crown winner, coming just as many were starting to ponder that the nature of racing in the 21st century may preclude it from ever happening again. So I'm going to concentrate on the horse.

- Bedbugs and Ballyhoo