You really should stop stating opinions as fact. He ran against a bias that day, and even if you think it was lingering effects from the TC, THE HORSE WAS BETTER IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER THAN IN THE SPRING. How the hell does his mediocre Haskell negate this?

Street Sense was probably not as sound or as strong as Curlin. Horses like Curlin and Hard Spun are not the norm. They are the exception to the rule. I could go down the list and come up with tons of horses like Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex who were never the same after the Triple Crown. It is a rare individual who can do what Curlin and Hard Spun did.

I wasn't painting you with that brush. I think you've raised debatable issues and made your points. And you may be spot on.

Heh, she isn't MY super filly. But if she won the belmont on top of the Preakness she would go down as the greatest ever. And I am so amazed how many Beyer Speed supporters there are when it comes down to defending yourself in a debate. I loved Rags to Riches but felt jilted when she got injured in that race against Lears Princess and never ran again. Let's keep Rachel around awhile.

Most of what is talked about here are our opinions. The fact is it was 8 weeks until he raced again. The fact is that most opinions by folks more up on this than I believed that his effort was compromised by the grueling nature of running in the triple crown. You have a different opinion which I am sure you expressed loudly when Curlin passed on the Travers that year. I understand why they would want to pass on the Belmont. Whether it is for rest or due to the distance, your guess is as good as mine.

Yeah Personal Ensign's would be second best to Rachel... Go watch her run down Winning Colors and let me know how great Rachel is.....

Yeah, Curlin was so sound he made his debut in February of his three-year-old year and drifted out into the middle of the track in winning it.

The best counter-argument you can come up with is Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex, two horses anyone with a brain knew would probably never race after the Belmont, injury or no?

Wow. If she beat Mine That Bird again and a bunch of Derby washouts, she'd be the greatest ever?

And another terrible comparison in using Rags to Riches. Rags had what, one up the track start as a two-year-old in June? She had plenty of issues that Rachel doesn't have.

RA must have been "fresh" going into the Preakness. :rolleyes:

I guess Mine That Bird now inherits the 'bet-against opportunity of the year' title.. -- I think he will be a big underlay at the Belmont now.

I am shocked;)

i guess she was feeling fresh off two weeks, but has a not so fresh feeling off three...

but yeah, a tidbit of irony in that statement. i guess the belmont is tougher than that brick wall they mentioned the other day.

They may be lucky if 20,000 show up if the weather is bad. The handle will show massive declines from last year.

Rupert, you know I'm usually a big advocate of running them on what today is called 'short rest'. But in this case I tend to agree with you. I think we're more likely to see her in interesting races down the road if she doesn't run in the Belmont.

I don't think Jackson will jump at the chance to retire her prematurely for some minor or phantom injury, either. That would seriously dent his stated goal of producing the next wave of sound thoroughbreds, by way of Curlin and Rachel.

--Dunbar

How do we know what Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex were after the Belmont? We got repeatedly fed lines of bullsh1t so they wouldn't have to run again. Both of them were fine coming out of the TC series, according to those that weren't involved in the protection schemes.

Just because a horse doesn't start as a 2 year old, that doesn't mean the horse is unsound. If I buy a very sound-looking 2 year old at a sale, I know the chances of that horse running as a 2 year old are probably no more than 20-30%. Not because the horse is unsound, but because the horse is bound to come down with some minor issue that will require a little time. You can have a horse that is close to racing in July and if they come down with a shin or something minor that requires 45-60 days at the farm, that horse will not run until January or February of the next year. If you turn a horse out for 2 months, they won't be able to run for 5 months because of the lost training.

I'm sure you are right that Curlin had a minor issue that prevented him from running as a 2 year old. But that hardly means he was an unsound horse. We know quite to the contrary that he was very sound. He was an "iron horse". He lasted all year as a 3 year old and then ran great as a 4 year old.

I don't know how you can say that Smart Jones or Afleet Alex would not have run again if they didn't get hurt. They were absolutley going to run again if they didn't get hurt. I've never heard of any sound 3 year old retiring only half-way through the year. There is this misperception out there that owners and trainers make up stories about their horse being injured. It is just the opposite. They will often lie and claim their horse is sound when in fact the horse is not. A good example was the filly Sweetcatofmine. When she was retired relatively early in her 3 year old year, the owner proclaimed that she was "retiring sound" which was total nonsense. If a horse is going to the breding shed, you certainly don't want people to think that the horse was unsound or that the horse was forced to retire due to injury. All things being equal, most people would rather breed to or buy the yearling of a sound horse than an unsound horse. So you would never want to say that your horse was unsound if it wasn't true.

Guys will downplay injuries and deny injuries. They don't make up stories about horses being injured. Owners don't feel the need to feign injury to justify retiring a horse.

Name me one line of bs that we were fed.

Smarty Jones was retired after a phantom "bone bruising" injury which takes 15-30 days to recover from, if even that. Unfortunately for Three Chimneys and the Chapmans, Dr. Larry Bramledge 'accidentally' blew the lid off their moneygrab by saying that it was something that horses come back from after rest all the time, and doesn't require surgery. If you think I'm sounding bitter, you're right. We were cheated of seeing a potentially GREAT horse for no reason whatsoever. I followed him from his first start ever, is probably my favorite horse of all time, and talked to everyone 'in the know' about it. There was NOTHING wrong with him, other than the normal risks of racing. The thing they were worried about was SJ was never really cut out to be a great sire, and unfortunately for his fans (myself included of course) it's proving to be true as he hasn't even had a US stakes winner yet despite some decent maiden winners.

In comparison from the same year, Stronach had no reason to try to bring back Ghostzapper at 5, as he was already proven to be the best horse of the generation and was a home run as a stallion, yet made the attempt anyways. He actually got hurt and had to be stopped on, but at least we got to see one more dynamite race.

And in no way am I suggesting that this has anything to do with Rachel, because I feel going to the Belmont isn't the right move for her anyways. She deserves a break and will come back to dominate again.

You're not getting her on Belmont day....get over it! Ask Jerry Brown if he thinks she should run.

Freddy,

I'm not going to spend time on this topic because it didn't matter to me one way or another if she ran at Belmont or not. I will mention that it's really pretty remarkable who is in your good graces and who isn't. But demeaning Hal Wiggins is utterly laughable. Put Rachel Alexandra in Asmussen's hands as a two year old and she'd have been retired by now.