Well put... I'm all for "honoring" horses with naming races after them, but this re-naming stuff has to stop.

They should put a condition on the race "for horses who haven't raced outside of California this year".

:D

I think there was a PG1985 interview, if I recall, where he mentioned that every runner beaten by Rachel from the Woodward, Preakness, and KY Oaks all won their next starts in Grade I company.

I think he said the average winning margin for those horses combined was something like 14 lengths, too, and one of them did it, winning by 25 lengths, carrying 170 pounds over jumps on an alternate portion of a dirt course giving the rest of the field a quarter mile headstart and running uphill both ways...and her rider said that horse is even better on the turf too!

That's just one of the really exceptional things that I pulled from my memory to clearly indicate how superior Rachel is in every way, about everything.

Where has PG/RHT been?

Getting up to speed at his new job at Bob Gary Racing.

you are joking, right?

More dead weight??

That actually almost happened in the early 1970s. A gelding named Petty Officer won three consecutive runnings of the Timeform Gold Trophy at Redcar (Britain), so they renamed it for him. And the next year he ran second in the race named for him.

A different tune will be sung when they name a race after RA.

Thank you. I was upset when great mares like Firenze and Maskette were erased by the NYRA. Why was there a need to change the Santa Susana S, which had years of history, to the Santa Anita Oaks? Because we idiots couldn't figure out that the Santa Susana was their Oaks race? Ditto the Oak Tree Derby (and Volante is actually buried on the grounds, so rolling over in his grave when his name was taken off the race might have had an effect!)

No one's criticizing naming a race after Zenyatta. They're criticizing renaming the Lady's Secret after Zenyatta. There are races with names that are frankly less controversial if you wanted to rename something but I'm sure they wanted to rename a G1. The Mosses should've gone with their first instinct.

Was there any reluctance to start a new race based on things like having to make the minimum purse for a G1 or having to go through the effort of getting the race up to that level without the momentum the Lady's Secret has? I guess if they take a G2 or G3 and slap her name on there, trying to get it up to G1, there'd be a gap for non-G1 horses trying to get a graded win.

Rachel will undoubtedly get a race named after her but there are ways to go about it that are better than others. We'll judge that situation when it happens. Gonna take a guess we're looking at CD, Pimlico, or Saratoga although Monmouth is certainly not beyond the realm. It's just the Oaks, Preakness, and Woodward were particularly stunning within her own personal history. At least that's what I figure, but her whole career's pretty incredible. I dunno what Saratoga's general habit has been with naming races after horses as compared to CD or Pim.

exactly! zenyatta may deserve a race, but why suddenly doesn't lady's secret?

Something like the NYRA Mile being renamed the Cigar Mile was a good idea, since it didn't already have a legendary horse in its title in the first place.

As goes with most folks this day in time -

history means nothing. What have you done for ME lately is all that matters.

This is the main reason why I know longer have the love for motorsports that I once loved, they have seemed to forget what helped get them, as an industry, to today.

Is anybody actually naming a race after Bobby or was that just part of an example to make a point?

I think they should name the 4th race at Charlestown for RA -- formerly known as the "Jimbo's Bar & Grill" purse...

Zenyatta should come out of retirement (if she really is retired) and win the Grade 1 Zenyattta next year. It will be the first time a horse has won a race named after themselves. Then if she goes to Churchill and wins the Classic next year, we should go back in time and award her the HOY for both 2009 and 2010.

This is an easy one. Just rename the Kentucky Oaks the Rachel Alexandra iz Hella Awesome!!!1!11!! Stakes. That should one-up these whores.

Seriously, what a bunch of jokers behind this horse. Mike Smith says she's even better on the dirt. Whoever was conducting the interview should've given that toolbox a swirlie right then and there.

[quote=ateamstupid]This is an easy one. Just rename the Kentucky Oaks the Rachel Alexandra iz Hella Awesome!!!1!11!! Stakes. That should one-up these whores.

Seriously, what a bunch of jokers behind this horse. Mike Smith says she's even better on the dirt. Whoever was conducting the interview should've given that toolbox a swirlie right then and there.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I suppose you know better than the jockey that's been on her all her life.

So why did they ship her out of California to run on dirt all of one time? To cut down on travel costs? Give me an effing break. It's completely hollow hyperbole and if you see it as anything else I've got a bridge to sell you.

She ran her 2nd best race on the dirt. At least on the synthetics, they have a chance of sneaking away from her if she gets a bad trip. On the dirt, her competitors have no chance. She's already shown that!

Actually you have that backwards. She would have had a very, very difficult time winning a race like the Clement Hirsch at Del Mar if it had been run on dirt.

I also don't believe for a second that she would have been better on dirt.

NT

I.. I honestly don't know how to respond to this. This is worse than what Smith said.

I.. I honestly don't know how to respond to this. This is worse than what Smith said.
:tro: :tro: :tro:

Zenyatta's winning margin last 9 synthetics races: 1 1/4, hd, 2 1/2, 1 3/4, 1 1/2, 3 1/2, 1, 1/2.

Her lone dirt race: 4 1/2 lengths - then another 3 1/2 back to Ginger Punch.

I only have her last 10 races.

:zz: just stop, this is getting embarrassing.

You can lead a horse to water...

I don't know why I'm bothering responding to you seriously considering your ridiculous bias on the HOY subject, but you honestly think winning margin has anything to do with the tea in China when we're discussing two different surfaces? Then again, for some reason you think it's easier for a horse to 'get away' on synthetics than on dirt, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

So then, tell me:

Why do you think you know better than Z's jockey and trainer (who also is on record as saying Z is better on dirt) that she is not better on dirt?

Talk is cheap. They could've proved their assertion, and again and again they refused to do so. It's just hollow lobbying for HOY and an attempt to quickly defer questions about her dirt ability. If you have half a brain you can see this. Unfortunately, your bizarre pro-Zenyatta/anti-RA bias doesn't allow you to admit it. Which is why I said this is getting embarrassing.

Z has won on both dirt and synthetics -- that is more than RA can say.

I'm done, this is a dead end, someone else can pick it up if they're feeling masochistic.

Technically RA has won on synthetics....I don't have the PPs in front of me, but I'm almost certain she has one

She won at Keeneland last year.

rachel won at keeneland at two. so i guess now we should trumpet about that rachel was actually better on synthetics, since she won on it once last year-that having as much to do with any HOY discussion as zenyatta's one race on dirt a year ago.

quick, someone get rachels synthetic margin of victory-altho i doubt it's as big a margin as her oaks, haskell, fantasy, etc, etc. :rolleyes:

she won by 3 lengths at Keenland

Clearly it was a better race than her Woodward or Preakness. :rolleyes:

Horse wins like 12 grade 1 or 2's, two breeders cups including the Classic.......and yet their talk is cheap. :zz:

I think she danced enough dances.

Try to follow. When you refuse to try your horse on dirt or outside of California more than once in 14 starts, then crow after she's retired about how she's an even better horse on dirt, yes, talk is cheap.