Maybe it is because of the names of the races. Of course the Oaks is a much more important race than those three that I named and has much more meaning and looks better on the resume. But I do think that the difference between the Derby and the Oaks is even bigger than the gap between the Oaks and those other races. I'm only saying that the concept is the same. Skipping the big race for a lesser one that you have a bigger chance of winning.

Fair enough -- I just think that lots of people are acting like winning the Kentucky Oaks is some sort of crappy consolation prize.

Do I think she could potentially factor in the Derby? Absolutely. Do I think she'd be better served winning for fun in the Oaks instead of taking the chance of not coming home with either? Absolutely.

The Oaks is a great prize to win. I would never suggest otherwise. But there's going to be a filly that wins the Oaks every year. There aren't going to be many chances when you have a filly with a legitimate chance to win the Derby. Quick, name the last three Oaks winners. Quick, name the three fillies that have won the Derby.

My question to you is how is the horse better served? I feel like either decision made would be for the benefit of the owner's ego. The horse is going to go out there and run hard either way. I think she'd do more for her championship aspirations to hit the board in the Derby than to win the Oaks. Assuming of course that she finishes the season and stays at her current level.

Sorry, I didn't mean that Rachel Alexandra herself would be better served...I'm pretty sure she doesn't care.

And it's probably sad, but your rhetorical question didn't work...I actually thought of the last three Oaks winners right off the top of my head and had to think about the Derby winners for a minute.

Lol. Ok. It works on most people. I can't even think of them. I know Proud Spell only.

Um, yea, that Lemons Forever is right on the tip of my tongue and Derby-winning fillies aren't probably says something....

For me, it was odd that I couldn't for the life of me remember that Rags won the race but I'll never forget her Belmont win.

Maybe because most people were at work on a Friday when she ran and won. I dislike the Oaks being on a Friday - unless I take the day off, I don't get to see it live.

i don't think i've ever seen it live.

Quick question.......would you rather win the Oaks or run second in the Derby with a Filly?

I'd rather run top three in the Derby.

If I were an owner....just the thrill of having my horse be leading the Derby at the top of the stretch turning for home.....might be more worth it than an Oaks win, whether or not she finishes in the top 3.

I'd have a story to tell for the rest of my life to non or casual horse racing fans if my horse could be leading the Derby with just a few furlongs left to go. I find value in that. But if I talk about winning the Oaks, anyone that isn't a dedicated fan might not know what I'm talking about.

If you had one day left to live in your life, you'd go for the Derby.

In that case, I'd probably aim for the 2112 Arc.

i just don't think it would be quite as exciting to run in the oaks as in the derby. it's the derby! even the most uninterested in racing know what the kentucky derby is. the oaks? no. someone asked who the last three oaks winners were, i had no clue! as for past derby winners, we could all name plenty.
i just think if you have a derby horse, you run in the derby. imo rachel alexandra is a derby-calibre horse. by the same token, i understand completely why they may not go.

It's really too bad she won't run in it. I hope her owners donate that $6000 to feeding that Pallagro guy's horses. 10X that would be even better.