you gotta be kidding. she's raced in marquee events-challenge her but not too much? what is she supposed to do, run in the dandy saturday and the haskell sunday? she's exhibited the consistency that no other horse this year has shown, against the top colts. yes, a few were sidelined-but she's beated every horse they faced pretty easily. hell, her average margin of victory this year is over 9 lengths. i don't think the travers will develop as being the toughest race-summer bird may not go, and a few others including munnings are dropping back in distance.

No, my point is that as between the Preakness and the Belmont, the Preakness was the more opportune race in which to challenge the boys - and they opted for the Preakness (and having made that decision, I think they did the right thing by the filly in skipping the Belmont). Fast-forward to the summer, as between the Haskell and the Travers, the Haskell presented the more opportune race for her (on a speed-favoring oval at 9F against a stretch-out sprinter and a horse that had not competed since the Belmont and who was clearly prepping for the Travers).

You don't get that I personally think poly is OK for eacing and intially was 100% for it as i thought it was safer for the animal. I also thought that poly would lead to bigger fields as more horses would be sound to run on it.

Rachel not running on poly has nothing to do with if it is acceptable surface.

I don't know about that - a lot of people were saying the Belmont was a better route for her than the Preakness when Jess first bought her since she wasn't initially being pointed there and hadn't been asked to turn around that quickly since she was a two year old.

Also, Big Drama is one of the horses who most conflicts with her running style and no horse like that was being pointed to the Belmont - so I don't see why you think he chose the more "opportune" spot.

Pimlico is 9.5f and generally considered speed favoring compared to the belmont at 12f. Regardless of pedigree, 12f was the unknown and was certainly the bigger risk between the two. They didnt know if SHE would like it but they also didnt know for sure which of the potential competitors would like it. In the Preakness, they pretty much knew what the competition was going to do except for Big Drama who was a sprinter stretching out. I think they knew that she could rate off of him.

I agree with Parsix. They have chosen their two spots very well and that certainly is no knock against the connections-that is what they are supposed to do. The Travers, pitting the respective winner of each classic, would be great for the sport. If the filly is well and you arent going to run in the BC, run her there.

I agree with you that that is what any connection should do.

While they didn't know the entire field in the Belmont, the Preakness generally is a more quality race. They were taking on the top 4 finishers in the Derby whereas the trend in the Belmont the past few years is a field of horses that didn't run well in the Derby or plodders that the connections feel the distance will help them. They could have taken the gamble that by the time the Belmont rolled around, the better horses would have dropped out and they would have a fresh horse.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more, both in terms of the relative strength of the Preakness versus the Belmont in general, or specifically with respect to this year's race.

Given trainers' desire for more time between races, the Preakness has become a race that generally is the weakest of the Triple Crown races, relegated to being less about Derby rematches and more about whether the Derby winner can keep the Triple Crown hope alive. The recent trend is for the better horses that did not win the Derby to pass the Preakness to run with five weeks rest in the Belmont.

The Preakness had a "deeper" field this year because of the perceived weakness of the 50-1 Derby winner. When the fact that highly regarded horses such as Dunkirk passed on the Preakness (and Quality Road had still not been taken out of consideration for the Belmont) was coupled with the distance, the Belmont would have been the far more ambitious spot. Rachel's presence is what made the Preakness this year. Without her, it would have been perceived as a very weak race.

(And I'll repeat that, after having run Rachel in the Preakness, I thought Jackson did the right thing by passing the Belmont.)

2008 - This field was so terrible in both races and unfortunately the second best horse died
2007 - Second best horse (Curlin) wins Preakness - is second to a fresh Rags to Riches, who was the only top horse that skipped the Preakness, but she didn't run in the Derby either
2006 - Bernardini wins the Preakness - Jazil wins the Belmont - I think that says enough about the quality of those two races. The horses who skipped the Preakness were Bob and John and Steppenwolfer - hardly exuding with class
2005-2004 - essentially the same fields

Did you just knock Jazil???????

I did. :o

I've never said he was the most talented thing to look through a bridle, I just liked him.

I'm stunned by this turn of events

Bernardini was a longshot in the Preakness, having won only a four-horse edition of the Withers. The rest of the Preakness field was so bad that Hemingway's Key ran third.

Both the second, third and fourth place horses from the Derby (Bluegrass Cat, Steppenwolfer and Jazil) skipped the Preakness to run in the Belmont.

Hey, im learning to be objective as well. Someone brought up mineshaft and i didnt say a word.

What would you say was the better field this year, the belmont or the preakness?

I'm showing my rebellious side.

How can you even ask that question? If you want to say excluding Rachel which was the better field you have a valid question but with Rachel in the Preakness it was light years ahead of the Belmont.

Without Rachel, the Belmont was a better field.

i had to read that twice too

I think its silly to think Zenyatta would not be better drugged up like his barn is, thats naive.

The numbers say Zenyatta's trainer is clearly better than Asmussen .. and more likely to move a horse up.

Don't forget what RA accomplished for Hal Wiggins .. a guy who's horses lose two and a half times the takeout from a huge sample size.

I just believe horses are better drugged than not, Azeri was better for Lukas as a 6 year old than for LDS as a 5 year old.

i think they were considering the travers next all along-as long as she did well in the haskell. but with kensei's emergence, jackson has a second travers prospect. rachel seems better than the other colts, so i can a reason to try older horses in the woodward and try to get the travers with the up and comer. i just don't agree that they're taking the 'safe' route with her. that would be shirreffs doing that! ;)

I resigned myself a long time ago that Rachel and Zenyatta will never meet (and the whole detention barn thing is a weak excuse for Zenyatta not to race in New York). Working from that assumption, IMO, the only appropriate spot for Rachel and the "good of the game," which Jackson says he's in this for, is the Travers, Kensei or no Kensei.

I agree 100% If he wants to give the fans a show, then that's the spot, The Traver's. Sure die hard horse fans might think either the Personal Ensign or the Woodward is the better spot, but when you are talking about attracting people to the sport on a non Triple Crown, Non Derby event, this is it.
To them having the Ky Derby Winner, Preakeness Winner and Belmont Winner all in the same race peaks EVERYONE'S interest even the casual to non horse racing fan. And to be played out in front of a national audience instead of TVG is important.

This is what would be best for the sport.

i don't think it's a given that mine that bird will run. or that summer bird will-especially if rachel runs. they both have suffered a loss at her hands, and with both vying for top colt, i don't see them taking her on again.

on another note-i have yet to see a good explanation as to why the 'casual fans' feelings should be taken more into consideration then the fans who actually keep this sport going? derby-goers plunking down $2 once a year on the horse with the cool name is NOT what keeps the derby going. yes, a few new fans being gained would be nice, but having rachel in the travers won't necessarily make that happen.
piquing interest is all well and good-but has the fan base grown because she ran in the preakness or the haskell? the casual derby fan wouldn't know what you're talking about when you mention the travers. they go to the derby because it's an event, like the super bowl-not because it's a horse race.

Or like Kid Rock said in his derby interview"I'm just here to Drink!!"

simply because you hope that casual and non fan start to become die hard fans. We all had to start somewhere.
You're right they may not know what we mean with Travers or Haskell etc. mean but they do know what the Derby, Preaknes and Belmont mean.
Of course nothing is a guarantee but this is what we have to work with, our Triple Crown winners are the stars and the fact that one of them is a female is just icing on the cake.

Just not doing anything will not draw anyone in, and I'm sure alot of die hards would love to see this race too.

Bottom line, no marque matchups and having big non TC races only being seen on TVG = no new fans.

all three winners in the same race + natiional telecast = a shot of drawing in the next die hard fan.

if the biggest race in the world fails to draw new fans, why would the travers? i read all the time about the hottest horse (curlin, smarty, barbaro, etc, etc) being the one to draw fans-but year after year, it doesn't happen. whether rachel goes to the travers or not, i don't see it making a casual fan into a hardcore fan. now, taking someone who has exhibited interest to the track, and showing them the ropes-you might just get a new one there. but seeing a filly race colts won't suddenly make people want to learn to read the form.

This bullshit about "Drawing new fans in" and"He/she needs to race to save racing"is just that,Bullshit.I've been hearing it year in and year out for the last 10 years that I have had internet service.Racing has been going for hundreds of years,and the only threat that I see to racing is PETA,and similar groups,who generate huge amounts of cash to buy and influence votes.

P.S. Rachael will kick Zenyatta's Lazy California ass all over the place.