Thanks for looking that up

what zenyatta did last year is immaterial. as for competing 'at the highest levels of her division'....i think that's pushing it.

who were the better older fillies that she has not beaten over two years? This ought to be good.

Alysheba was "America's horse"

Icon Project for one.

The Nashoba's Key tragedy cost us a chance to see her match up with Zen.

I know I was in the minority at the time when I posted that I thought Zenyatta was likely the better of the two.

I think Zenyatta might have found beating horses like Informed Decision and Ventura a huge challenge at 8.5fs .. especially in those slow paced races.

If there was no filly and mare sprint added to the BC menu .. it's possible she could have faced both at 8.5f in the Lady's Secret .. though Ventura probably would have run in the Mile against the boys and not prepped in the Lady's Secret.

Hard to know what Informed Decision might have done without a filly and mare sprint. Probably sprinted against the males at 6fs ... but looking at her pedigree ... I think the Mile on turf or the Distaff wouldn't have been fully out of the question.

again, i was referring to this year. last year means nothing regarding the question in the title of this thread. the bcc field was the only decent field she was in the mix with all year.

just saw that the new york times is offering voting in their poll with a point/counterpoint argument. a nice piece for racing in there for a change!

oh, and rachel is the overwhelming fave with respondents.

It would be interesting if they did the poll like espn and showed how the voting is in different parts of the country.

Thats like asking people in Ohio who they favor, OSU or Michigan...

You do realize she trashed, and I mean trashed, the filly who is going to be second in older mare voting, three separate times?

i assume you mean life is sweet? another horse who had a good bc so suddenly is a top horse for the year....i guess four wins is all it takes, just discount the losses. makes you wonder why any of them run anytime other than late fall.

who did she lose to? Cmon, this is basic handicapping 101

Rail Trip, who is probably as talented a horse in the country

and Zenyatta, as Steve Crist says in his Sunday column "one of the great female horses of all time".

sure she is. i'm in no way slighting zenyatta when i say that simply put, rachel had the better year. did zenyatta have a good year? absolutely. in many years, i'd have said she'd earned the top honors. but not this year. as good as she was, i just think rachel accomplished more.

as for the life is sweet argument, it seems a circuitous one. zenyatta is good because she beat life is sweet, who is good because she lost to zenyatta? if rachel on the other hand had confined herself to racing in only one state, how would you feel about her chances, her victories?

It would be one thing if she was losing to Zenyatta, and only Zenyatta. The fact remains that she was soundly beaten by Anabaa's Creation and Lethal Heat on the one occasion as well, and then beaten again by Lethal Heat the next time she faced Zenyatta.

It's a totally convenient, but not very logical, argument.

Zenyatta's greatness was not proven by her beating Anabaa's Creation, say her supporters, but by beating Life Is Sweet....who was beaten by Anabaa's Creation? Zenyatta's greatness was not proven by her beating Lethal Heat, but by beating Life Is Sweet.....who was beaten twice by Lethal Heat?

There's an argument to be made for Zenyatta, to be sure, but I'm having a really hard time thinking that her beating Life Is Sweet, when she was running 4th, is the best way to go about it, because that either means Life Is Sweet was not very good in those two tries (agreed), or the Ladies' Classic field was just THAT pathetic that a horse who couldn't even beat Anabaa's Creation and Lethal Heat could run off with it?

East Coast bias, even if they know who the horses are.

i disagree. people keep lumping rachel into the east coast, conveniently forgetting races at oaklawn, fairgrounds and churchill downs.

In terms of horse racing, "East Coast" bias would include tracks east of the Mississippi. Horses that run at Fairgrounds, CD, Oaklawn and in Florida are considered "east coast" horses

agree, thats why when it comes to Eclipse voting over the years there have been some very curious results with west coast horses.

In the horse racing world, everything east of Wash, Cali, Ariz is considered "East Coasters". Easterners claim MTB (the New Mexico runner), anything from Arlington, KY, etc.