I well remember the night in February 1990 when Tyson lost his heavyweight title to Buster Douglas. A week later, when a tape of the fight was broadcast on cable, I went with a friend to a local bar where it was being shown on what was a big TV screen (for the time) and the place erupted in jubilant cheers when Tyson was knocked down — even though the outcome had been known for several days.
I have another friend who is always telling jokes. Some are good, some aren't, but one of my favorites goes like this:
Q: What did Mike Tyson say to Vincent Van Gogh?
A: "You gonna eat that?"
But there is nothing funny about what Tyson and his girlfriend are facing today.
It's a sad reminder for all parents of the dangers that lurk in the home — and the constant diligence that is needed to keep children safe.
Larry Stone, founder of Safety Matters, told CNN that about 1,000 children under the age of 14 die of unintentional strangulation each year, and nearly 90% are under the age of 4.
I hope Tyson and his girlfriend can find some peace as they deal with this terrible tragedy.
Joe Posnanski writes, in Sports Illustrated, about the chance that the Cleveland Cavaliers will bring a major sport's championship trophy to Cleveland for the first time in nearly half a century.
I'm not an NBA fan. I didn't even get swept up in it when the Mavericks made it to the NBA finals a few years ago, and I haven't watched a minute of this year's playoffs. But I read the columns and the game stories online. And I know the Cavaliers are playing well, and everyone is talking about whether LeBron James and his teammates can end that title drought.
If Cleveland is going to advance to the championship series, the Cavaliers will have to win at least one game on the road in the Eastern finals. Orlando made sure of that by winning Game 1.
But Greg Doyel of CBS Sports gushes that James had a "Michael (Jordan) Moment" with his game–winning shot last night. Bill Livingston of the Cleveland Plain Dealer clearly saw Jordan on that court last night — but this time, the shot went Cleveland's way.
And because of that, the Cavaliers only need to win once on the road instead of facing the seemingly insurmountable task of winning four games before the Magic can win two more.
Comparisons to Michael Jordan help solidify the case that James is going to end Cleveland's suffering. Look what Jordan did for Chicago. But the Cavaliers must win a best–of–seven series in which at least three more games remain to be played.
And the winner of that series will have another tough assignment in the form of Denver or Los Angeles. That series is also tied at 1–1; the Nuggets, with their Game 1 victory, guaranteed that the Lakers would need at least one road win to advance.
Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel knows that this series isn't going to be easy. For anyone.
And if the next round doesn't feature Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, it will showcase Carmelo Anthony and the Denver Nuggets. And, as Dave Krieger writes in the Denver Post, Anthony has earned some recognition.
It's a little premature to be daydreaming about titles. That seems like a sure path to disaster. Focus on the task at hand.
There's a lot of baseball left to be played, of course, but a quick glance at the standings shows that I'm pretty much on target.
Well, in the National League, anyway.
In the National League, I picked Philadelphia, St. Louis and Los Angeles to win their divisions. And I picked the New York Mets to be the NL wild card team.
If the season ended today, the Dodgers would win the West by 6½ games. With a winning percentage of .675, L.A. has the best overall record in baseball.
The Phillies are sharing the NL East lead with the Mets, but if the season ended today, only one of those teams would be in the playoffs. The Phillies have a slightly higher winning percentage (.556 to .553), but the Mets have won 21 games compared to 20 for the Phils.
Actually, the Chicago Cubs, with a winning percentage of .583, would be the wild card team. The Milwaukee Brewers currently lead the Central with a winning percentage of .632. The Cardinals are still in the hunt. They led that division for much of April and part of May, but they've lost seven of their last 10 games and tumbled into third place. Even so, they're starting a series with the Cubs tonight and may well overtake them before Memorial Day.
My picks seem to be in a bit of trouble in the American League, though.
In March, I chose the Boston Red Sox, the Minnesota Twins and the Los Angeles Angels to win their divisions. I chose the New York Yankees to round out the playoff field as the AL's wild card team.
In the AL East, Toronto leads Boston by 3½ games and New York by 4½ games.
In the AL Central, Detroit has a one–game lead over Kansas City, with Minnesota 3½ games off the pace.
In the AL West, the Texas Rangers lead the Angels by four games.
I don't know if Toronto and Detroit will hang on in their divisions, but I feel pretty confident about the Angels in the West. I've lived in Dallas for the last 13 years — 17 of the last 21 — and I know that the Rangers may look hot right now, but when the real heat comes along this summer, the Rangers will wilt in a hurry.
They've done it many times before.
But, if the season ended today, Toronto, Detroit and Texas would be the division winners. Boston would be the only team that I picked that came through — but as the wild card.
Cleveland's Victor Martinez has had the hot bat so far this season. He's hitting .401. The National League's leading hitter is Washington's Cristian Guzman with a .385 average.
San Diego's Adrian Gonzalez leads the majors with 15 home runs. The AL's top home run hitter is Tampa Bay's Carlos Pena with 13.
Pena's teammate, Evan Longoria, leads the majors in RBIs with 46. St. Louis' Albert Pujols tops the NL with 37.
In pitching statistics, Roy Halladay of Toronto has the most wins so far — eight. The co–leaders in the NL — Cincinnati's Bronson Arroyo, Los Angeles' Chad Billingsley, Pittsburgh's Zach Duke and Ross Ohlendorf, Chicago's Ted Lilly, Atlanta's Derek Lowe, Colorado's Jason Marquis, Washington's Shairon Martis and New York's Johan Santana — have five apiece.
San Diego's Jake Peavy and Detroit's Justin Verlander lead the NL and AL, respectively, in strikeouts with 69 each.
After eight starts, Kansas City's Zack Greinke (7–1) has a blistering ERA of 0.60 to lead the majors. He's given up only four earned runs, all of which have come since April 29. He allowed none in his first four starts. Santana has the NL's best ERA — 1.30.
Santana, by the way, is on course to pitch against Randy Johnson when the Mets play the San Francisco Giants on Sunday.
So there will be no Triple Crown winner this year — although we might have to put an asterisk next to the year 2009 in the annals of horse racing because the same jockey, Calvin Borel, has won the first two races. He just won on different horses.
I don't think it's ever come up before, but Borel might win all three Triple Crown races — but not on the same horse. Would he be considered a Triple Crown winner by himself?
In the three weeks until the Belmont, I'm sure someone will explore the possibility. But at least one sports writer, Rick Bozich of the Louisville Courier–Journal, says Borel "deserves his Muhammad Ali moment."
Well, he deserves to savor what he has done so far — win or lose in three weeks.
The Baltimore Sun reports that attendance was down more than 30% over last year and was the lowest it has been in 26 years. One can only imagine what the absence of a Triple Crown possibility will do to the gate receipts and overall wagers on the Belmont three weeks from today.
But the folks in Baltimore saw a pretty exciting race this afternoon.
Well, that is what they are calling today's 134th Preakness at Pimlico in Baltimore.
The battle of the sexes.
In a way, I suppose, that's an appropriate label for today's race, matching as it does the winner of the Kentucky Derby, Mine That Bird, and the fabulous filly, Rachel Alexandra, that apparently has stolen the hearts of the betting public along with Mine That Bird's jockey.
And the guys in the pressbox seem equally taken with Rachel Alexandra. The filly, writes Tim Layden in Sports Illustrated, could be the fastest horse in the field, regardless of gender. And she has Calvin Borel — her regular rider who rode Mine That Bird to a stunning win in the Derby.
In fact, Borel rode Rachel Alexandra to a 20–length victory the day before the Derby
For some reason, it just doesn't seem like the battle of the sexes to me, perhaps because the battle features animals and not humans. If one of the jockeys was a girl, I might feel differently about it. But Mike Smith will be aboard Mine That Bird today.
Kevin Van Valkenburg of the Baltimore Sun says this is Mine That Bird's moment of truth. And indeed it is. In a couple of hours, the horses will run and we will resolve the storyline that I think is the real theme of the day: Is Mine That Bird the real deal? Will he reward the believers? Or will he confirm what the skeptics have been saying?
And there are plenty of skeptics who feel that a 50–1 shot got lucky when a "perfect storm unfolded" on a sloppy track at Churchill Downs two weeks ago.
The odds haven't changed much. According to the Morning Line, Rachel Alexandra is a 8–5 pick. Pioneerof the Nile, the second–place finisher in the Derby, is 5–1. Mine That Bird is 6–1. So is Friesan Fire, which was a favorite at the Derby but ended up far back in the pack. Musket Man, the show horse in the Derby, is 8–1.
All the other horses — there are 13 running today — are getting odds of 10–1 or higher.
I'll be honest. I would like to see a Triple Crown winner. When I was a teenager, they were commonplace. Between 1973 and 1978, there were three Triple Crown winners — Secretariat (1973), Seattle Slew (1977) and Affirmed (1978). Great horses. I remember watching them run.
Is Mine That Bird worthy of becoming only the 12th horse to win the Triple Crown? We'll find out a lot in less than two hours now.
I'm going to predict that he is. I was impressed with Borel's work as the jockey two weeks ago, but I've seen Smith ride before, and I think he is capable of riding Mine That Bird to victory.
I'm not convinced of Rachel Alexandra's speed, but I've never seen her run. If I was at the track today, I would put $2 on her to show. If she has a duel with Mine That Bird that conjures memories of the epic Affirmed–Alydar battles, I'd be willing to bet her higher at the Belmont in three weeks.
But I'm going to pick Musket Man to come in second.
I don't know what the odds will be on each horse when the Preakness field bursts through the gates at Pimlico tomorrow.
But I do know one group that will be virtually unanimous in its support for Kentucky Derby winner Mine That Bird — the folks who are affiliated with the Belmont.
The Belmont, of course, is the third jewel in horse racing's Triple Crown. If the winner of the Derby doesn't win the Preakness, the Belmont becomes primarily an afterthought. TV ratings are down, wagers are down, everything is down.
So, every year, the folks who are connected to the Belmont want the Derby winner to prevail in Baltimore on the third Saturday in May. It doesn't matter to them if that horse proceeds to win the Belmont in June as long as there is a chance that there will be a Triple Crown winner.
Because that means more bets, a bigger crowd, more food and drink sales.
And that can only happen if the Derby winner also wins the Preakness.
The Belmont folks always have motivation to pull for the Derby winner in the Preakness. But this year, with the economy decidedly down, there is more motivation than usual.
Mason Levinson reports, for Bloomberg.com, that the New York Racing Association estimates that, if Mine That Bird enters the Belmont with victories in both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, it can mean "as much as $3 million extra from ticket sales, concessions and betting."
That's quite an incentive. It's been more than 30 years since there was a Triple Crown winner. If there is a chance that the winner of the Belmont will be the one who ends the Triple Crown drought, obviously a lot of folks will want to be there to see it.
"The most recent of horse racing's 11 Triple Crown winners was Affirmed in 1978," Levinson observes. "Eleven horses have won the first two legs since then — seven in the past 12 years — and all have failed to win on the 1½–mile Belmont track just outside New York City in Elmont. The Derby is 1¼ mile, the Preakness is 1 3/16 mile."
According to George Vecsey of the New York Times, Mine That Bird is the Rodney Dangerfield of horse racing.
"Sometimes there is no respect," Vecsey writes, "even for a Kentucky Derby winner."
Vecsey says there are at least four reasons why Mine That Bird "is being played down" on the eve of the Preakness — "the suspicion that he got lucky in the Derby; the entrance of Rachel Alexandra, the wonder filly; the defection of Calvin Borel, who took such an audacious ride in the Derby; and the apparent insecurity of his ownership."
My guess is that, if Mine That Bird wins tomorrow, he'll get plenty of respect in New York in three weeks — and the folks at the Belmont will be laughing all the way to the bank.
In a thrilling finish, Affirmed edged Alydar in the 1978 Preakness and captured the second jewel in the Triple Crown.
There hasn't been a Triple Crown winner in thoroughbred racing since 1978.
There have been several near–misses in the last three decades. Last year's was noteworthy. Big Brown won the first two races and was proclaimed by racing observers to be a virtual lock to win the Belmont and wrap up the Triple Crown. But fate intervened.
Nearly two weeks ago, Mine That Bird, with jockey Calvin Borel aboard, ran to the second–biggest upset in Kentucky Derby history, and racing fans have been wondering if he can capture the elusive Triple Crown. But if he does, he will have to win at least the Preakness with a different jockey. Borel won't be riding Mine That Bird this Saturday. He will be riding Rachel Alexandra, the controversial filly that is currently a 9–5 pick to become the first filly to win the Preakness since 1924.
Jockey Mike Smith will be riding Mine That Bird, presently a 9–2 pick, in Saturday's race. Even though Mine That Bird is one of the favorites in this race — unlike the 50–1 shot he was two weeks ago — the filly has been turning some heads.
Rick Maese writes, in the Los Angeles Times, that Mine That Bird's chances seem slimmer than the existence of UFOs. Whatever one thinks of Mine That Bird and his chances of ending the Triple Crown drought, it's an appropriate comparison, given his connections to Roswell, N.M.
You can find out more about the 13–horse field, as well as the weather and track conditions at Pimlico, here.
They said it couldn't be done, but Roger Bannister didn't listen to them. Fifty–five years ago, he proved that it could be done.
On May 6, 1954, the 25–year–old Bannister made history at Iffley Road Track in Oxford, running a mile in less than four minutes.
Announcer Norris McWhirter teased the crowd of 3,000 by drawing out the announcement of the results:
"Ladies and gentlemen, here is the result of event 9, the one mile: 1st, No. 41, R.G. Bannister, Amateur Athletic Association and formerly of Exeter and Merton Colleges, Oxford, with a time which is a new meeting and track record, and which — subject to ratification — will be a new English Native, British National, All-Comers, European, British Empire, and World Record. The time was 3 ..."
The roar of the crowd drowned out the rest of the announcement of the time — 3:59.4.
Bannister's record stood for less than seven weeks. Australian John Landy broke the record in Finland with a time of 3:57.9. In August, the two men met in a showdown in Vancouver, B.C., that would have evoked memories of the Seabiscuit–War Admiral horse racing "Match of the Century" nearly 16 years earlier if only Landy and Bannister had been in the race. But they were joined by some other runners who were equally talented — just not as fast on that day.
Even so, Bannister and Landy dominated. Landy led most of the way, but Bannister caught him and passed him at the end. Bannister's time of 3:58.8 was not quite fast enough to break Landy's mark, but he claimed the record in the "metric mile" (1,500 meters) at the European Championships three weeks later with a time of 3:43.8.
Bannister then retired from competitive running to devote his attention to his medical studies.
It has been said that the assertion that the four–minute mile was impossible was really a myth. Bannister himself refuted it in his memoir. He and others claimed that, because of improvements in training and conditioning, the four–minute mile might have fallen earlier if not for the interruption of World War II.
What is really remarkable, track fans say, is that Bannister achieved the sub–four–minute mile on very low mileage training by today's standards.
In my last post, I tended to be somewhat dismissive of Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports for his attitude toward Brett Favre.
I admit that I haven't followed Doyel closely, but my sense, from reading his article, is that he doesn't like Favre, has never liked him and feels the NFL will be better off when he is gone. I could be wrong. I certainly have been before.
Today, someone who does have my respect, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, weighs in on the matter.
King acknowledges that he was wrong last year when he wrote that Favre had hung it up for good "and I could well be wrong again."
There is plenty of speculation these days about how Favre feels about the Green Bay organization. If there is lingering bitterness, perhaps it will subside when Favre thinks about what the Packers did for him.
Think back. Favre only had one scholarship offer — from Southern Mississippi — which he took. He was taken in the second round of the 1991 draft by the Atlanta Falcons. But Atlanta coach Jerry Glanville wasn't sold on him and said it would take a plane crash for him to put Favre into a game. It didn't take anything quite that dramatic, but Favre's single year in Atlanta was hardly distinguished. His first pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown. He only made four pass attempts with the Falcons and none were completed to a teammate.
The Packers picked up Favre in an offseason trade, and he went on to play 16 seasons with the Packers. Initially, he didn't impress the Packer faithful, but he came in for the injured Don Majkowski in 1992, and, like Lou Gehrig taking over for Wally Pipp, proceeded to shatter the existing record for consecutive starts.
King says he has had three conversations with Favre since he announced he was retiring from the Jets, "and he hasn't conveyed any hatred or venom toward the Packers in any of them. But it's also a topic I haven't probed him on either."
My sense, from what King writes about Favre, is that the man is uncertain about what the future holds. Well, a lot of people feel that way. King writes that he believes Favre "will always feel that for all the years he spent in Green Bay, he deserved to go where he wanted, instead of where the Packers wanted to send him." Perhaps that is true. But I don't think the Packers can be blamed for feeling that, without their intervention in 1992, Favre may never have had the kind of career that he had.
They had a mutually beneficial relationship, the Packers and Favre. But, like all such relationships in professional sports, it had to end.
I do find myself sympathizing more and more with those who feel we've passed the time when Favre should gracefully accept the fact that every professional athlete must eventually accept — that even someone who plays the game with the boyish enthusiasm that Favre has reaches the point where the years have taken their toll. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he can walk away from the game without having had any major injuries. There is no guarantee that he could still do that, at the age of 40, after playing one more season.
I admit, I feel the same sense of loss I have felt when other players I admired ended their careers. It is inevitable. And when Favre is no longer playing, when his retirement is finally official, I will be sorry to see him go.
I will always be grateful for the memories he gave me, as I'm sure other Packer fans will. But I don't blame the Packers for believing last year that their future lay elsewhere, and I feel that Aaron Rodgers showed potential last year as Favre's successor.
As for whether Favre has hung it up for good, that's something only he can answer. Is he going to come back and play for Minnesota? I don't know. I hope not.
But if last year taught us anything, it is that Brett Favre will do things his way.
Gregg Doyel writes, for CBS Sports, that Brett Favre is "probably" going to come back, this time to be the quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings.
As I've said many times, I am a Green Bay Packers fan. I've been one as long as I can remember — even though I grew up in the South. I remember watching the Packers on TV when Vince Lombardi was still their coach. I think I "officially" became a Packer fan (the word "Cheesehead" didn't exist yet) when I was collecting football cards in elementary school.
In four decades of pulling for the Packers, I have seen many disappointing seasons. When my friends were aligning themselves with the successful teams of the day — the Dolphins, the Cowboys, the Steelers, the Raiders and, later, the 49ers — I doggedly pulled for the Pack as they struggled through numerous sub–.500 seasons.
So, when Favre came along and began leading the Packers into the playoffs, I rejoiced. At last, a successor to Bart Starr, my childhood idol. In the years to come, I saw Favre take the Packers to two Super Bowls and win three MVP awards.
I knew, in recent years, that his days were numbered, but I always wanted to see him come back for one more year, hoping to see him take the Packers to the promised land once more.
Well, he never did take the Packers back to the Super Bowl, but he gave Packer fans many memorable moments in his final years wearing the green and gold — including the ones captured in the video I have attached to this post.
And last year, his tenure in Green Bay finally came to an end. I mourned his departure but I took it somewhat philosophically. I waited 30 years between Super Bowls, I told myself. If necessary, I will wait another 30.
If anything, his performance with the Jets last season showed two things — 1) he was still capable of giving football fans some memorable performances, and 2) he is no longer capable of single–handedly carrying a team to the Super Bowl. He did some great things for the Jets last year, but he will turn 40 during the coming football season. He's never suffered a major injury, but a 40–year–old quarterback is not as resilient as a 25–year–old quarterback — and if he plays for Minnesota, he will spend at least half the season playing indoors on artificial turf, which has virtually no "give."
Logically, he should retire for good. But that's his choice to make. Not mine or anyone else's.
Doyel insists that Favre is "a liar, a fraud, a creep" who keeps coming back for selfish reasons.
I'd like to know where Doyel was when Michael Jordan kept retiring and then un–retiring. According to his CBS bio, Doyel's 36 years old so he must be old enough to remember those episodes. And he's covered ACC basketball in his career — he's even written a book about Coach K and Duke (Jordan went to North Carolina).
Did he regard Jordan as "a liar, a fraud, a creep" for continually returning to the NBA after retiring? My guess is no, that, like many basketball fans, he welcomed the opportunity to once again see Jordan do what he had always done best.
As a Packer fan, I would be sorry to see Favre playing in the same division as the Packers, but Doyel is wrong when he suggests that the Vikings are the Packers' greatest rivals. Although I have never lived in Green Bay, I think a lifetime of pulling for the Packers qualifies me to say this — the Chicago Bears are the Packers' greatest rivals. The Chicago–Green Bay series is the oldest rivalry in the NFL, and there may never be a head–to–head coaching matchup to rival the one between Lombardi and George Halas.
But if Favre suits up in Viking purple next season, he will make the Minnesota–Green Bay games worth watching.
The only reason the other horses weren't left in the "cloud of dust" I wrote about earlier is because the track was wet.
It's the second–biggest upset in the Derby's 135–year history. In fact, the only thing that might have been more dramatic than a 50–1 shot winning the race might have been if someone who has been out of work for several months and badly needed a break had put down about what remained of his/her life savings on win, place and show tickets on Mine That Bird. For $2 tickets, Mine That Bird paid $103.20, $54 and $25.80.
I doubt that Mine That Bird will be a 50–1 shot in the Preakness two weeks from today, but I have to wonder what affect the presence of I Want Revenge will have — assuming that I Want Revenge will be completely recovered from the condition that kept him from running in today's race.
On another note, the Louisville Courier–Journal posted a video clip of comedian Joe Piscopo, along with photos of Piscopo and other celebrities who were spotted at Churchill Downs today.
Piscopo is 57 years old. It's been 25 years since he left "Saturday Night Live." He hasn't had a particularly noteworthy career since leaving SNL, and I don't recall seeing him in anything, although I probably have and I just don't remember it. So what struck me was how ordinary he looks.
The actors and/or comedians who seem to be really famous, really legendary are the ones who look distinctive throughout their lives — and who are instantly recognizable, whether they are 25 or 55. It goes without saying, I guess, that they have talent. But people know who they are when they see them. Humphrey Bogart was like that. So was George Carlin. Ditto Johnny Carson.
But I could walk by Joe Piscopo on the street and not know who he is — unless he opened his mouth and started talking. He looks like a fairly typical, middle–aged businessman, and I would have to look at him for a minute or two before I realized who he was.
So — per my earlier post — my new pick, based mostly on speed figures, is Dunkirk.
It does not appear that I Want Revenge has sustained a serious injury, but apparently there was some concern on the part of his trainer that the weather and the track surface could combine to make things worse.
"We just thought that in the best interests of the horse, we're not going to run," trainer Jeff Mullins told Newsday.
The absence of I Want Revenge shouldn't change Rob Longley's Derby picks in the Edmonton Sun.
Longley wrote that I Want Revenge "[o]vercame all kinds of trouble in his last race and still won. A contender for sure but figures to be overbet." Not anymore. Perhaps in the Preakness two weeks from now.
Longley's choice to win the race? Desert Party, a 15–1 shot whose speed figures haven't impressed me. I wonder if Longley is reacting to the recent trend of Derby winners coming from outside post positions, including Big Brown last year from the Post 20 position. Desert Party has the Post 19 position in this year's race. "Outside post won't hurt as it will allow him to get position to effectively use his tactical speed," Longley writes.
His second pick is Friesan Fire ("He is bred for the distance, worked spectacularly over the track here and was brilliant in winning the Louisiana Derby."), his third choice is Dunkirk ("He will be great one day, but perhaps not yet.") and his fourth selection is 30–1 shot Regal Ransom ("Should be a factor on the front end but if the pace is too hot he could be cooked by the time the field hits mid–stretch.")
Someday, I would like to go to the Kentucky Derby. The weather seems about right today — upper 50s, slight chance of isolated showers.
I'm not a devoted horse racing fan, but I do take issue with Jaime Samuelson's blog post in the Detroit Free–Press contending that the Kentucky Derby's claim to be the "most exciting two minutes in sports" is overrated.
And I agree with one of his readers, who commented that Samuelson apparently has never been to the backstretch of any race track — and offered to take him. "It will change your view on the sport," the reader wrote.
I agree with that because I was a casual observer myself when I started working on the sports copy desk of the Arkansas Gazette, but I got to know the horse racing writer and visited Oaklawn Park in Hot Springs on many occasions.
There really is nothing like it. Thoroughbred horses are majestic creatures to watch. When you watch these noble beasts get into position and then burst into the race, you understand why horse racing is considered the sport of kings.
And racing reminds me, in a way, of something a hockey fan once told me. He said that seeing a hockey game in person was entirely different from seeing it on TV. Horse racing is like that. The TV experience cannot compare with watching a race from the rail of a track. The atmosphere is unique.
If you're lucky enough to be in Kentucky this afternoon, I hope you enjoy the experience.
For nearly five years, I worked on the sports copy desk of the Arkansas Gazette, which was, for a long time, the oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi River.
And I worked with several talented writers — some of whom are gone now — who knew a lot about the sports they covered.
One was the fellow who wrote about horse racing in Hot Springs. I had a lot of respect for this guy's opinions and, lately, I have been wondering what he would think the odds are that thoroughbred racing is going to end its three–decade drought since the last Triple Crown winner.
Well, if he agreed with Gene Menez's column at CNNSI.com about today's Kentucky Derby, I'm inclined to think he would feel the odds didn't favor seeing the Triple Crown streak end in 2009.
In fact, if Menez is correct about the Kentucky Derby, all talk of a Triple Crown may well end when the horses run in the second of the three races two weeks from today.
"Even though the morning line for Saturday's Kentucky Derby suggests that this year's Run for the Roses is a four–horse race (top top four choices are 5–1 or better, and no one else is lower than 15–1), the reality is that a case can be made for perhaps a dozen entrants donning the blanket of roses," he writes.
Menez finally settles on 5–1 pick Friesan Fire, but he makes pretty good cases for I Want Revenge (3–1), Dunkirk (4–1) and Chocolate Candy (20–1) as well.
I think a wide–open race like that should attract a lot of attention today, but if there is no standout — no one horse that leaves the rest of the field behind in a cloud of dust — I can't see 2009 being the Year of the Triple Crown winner.
Shoot, we had a horse last year that romped to big victories in the first two races — and he was a huge favorite to complete the sweep. But he may still be making the turn in that third one.
My instinct tells me that a competitive Derby should be a good thing, attracting lots of attention and lots of wagers. The odds aren't astronomical, although half a dozen horses are around 50–1. In fact, half of the 20 entries are 20–1 or better, which makes them reasonable candidates in the betting public's eyes.
But in spite of attractive and seemingly realistic odds on several horses, Nancy Kercheval reports for Bloomberg.com that the recession could reduce betting by 30%.
"Rising unemployment and job insecurity, a lack of available credit, falling property values and declines in retirement savings and other investments have prompted people to reduce spending," reports Kercheval.
Tony Sinisi, a Las Vegas oddsmaker, says that would be in line with declines that have been seen in Super Bowl and March Madness wagering. "There are fewer disposable betting dollars," he says.
That being the case, I guess there will be a lot of people who would be more likely to place a bet today if they felt they could maximize their investment. There's no guarantee — my friend liked to say that there's no such thing as a sure thing. But Christina Settimi writes, at Forbes.com, that you just need to know where to look — and what to look for.
Settimi, like many horse racing observers, relies heavily on The Daily Racing Form. She also makes no prediction after listing the important factors to consider, although she cautions against picking the favorite — whoever that may be by post time.
I don't follow horse racing religiously so please don't base your selection on my prediction. But I've always tended to feel that, if everything else seems to be equal, speed figures are the best yardstick. In this case, that appears to favor the 3–1 favorite, I Want Revenge. My second choice would be 4–1 pick Dunkirk.
So, in spite of warnings not to pick the favorite, that's what I'm doing, although speed figures also make a compelling case for Menez's pick, Friesan Fire.
As it always does, the Kentucky Derby will answer a lot of questions. With a Derby winner likely to be in the field, betting may rebound at the Preakness in two weeks as bettors assess the chances of the Derby winner capturing a Triple Crown this year.
But if it's a photo finish with possibly three or four horses in the picture, don't expect a horse to join Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed as one of American racing's Triple Crown winners.
By the way ...
Here's some interesting Triple Crown trivia.
The Kentucky Derby is held on the first Saturday in May. Of the 13 horses that won the Triple Crown, none of those horses won a Kentucky Derby that was held on May 2. Triple Crown winners have won the Kentucky Derby on every other possible date except May 2.
A "tomato can" is a fighter who is believed to be past his prime and an "easy" or "guaranteed" win for an up-and-coming fighter who wants to pad his record.
Sometimes, though, the "tomato can" doesn't cooperate. For example, in 1990, undefeated heavyweight champion Mike Tyson lost the title to a 42-to-1 underdog named Buster Douglas.
Another heavyweight champion, Muhammad Ali, almost lost his title to lightly regarded Chuck Wepner in 1975. Wepner nearly went the distance against Ali and inspired the original "Rocky" movie.
I got my bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Arkansas, and I got my master's degree in journalism from the University of North Texas. Most of my adult life has been dedicated to writing and editing in one form or another. Most recently I have taught writing (news and developmental) as an adjunct journalism professor at Richland College, where I advise the student newspaper staff. Go, Thunderducks!
