This whole thread has become a bit silly. We don't have an "OUR historical perspective". We have our own.

who would these 'most people' be? i would think most racing fans who follow the sport would know better. i would expect non-racing fans to not even know who rachel alexandra is-perhaps they would guess she was a russian czarina?

genuine risk remains the best filly in the spring classics, and she's not even the best filly all time.

Certainly?

Who knew that you speak for " most people? "

I didn't know you were the beginning and the end of the subject. No one told me.

You're the one who's making claims about what "most people" would think. Apparently it's fine for you to be the authority on how Rachel would be perceived, but no one else.

Please she is beating swill.. I like Rachel and believe she is terrific but the best ever because she beat a midget birdstone colt.. have a heart

lol
yeah, ok.

at any rate, she's skipping the belmont so she'll have to wait a bit longer for greatest ever status.

besides, i said 'i would think'. that doesn't exactly sound like an emphatic statement, does it?

They would've had to be certifiably insane to run her back in this race.


Jack and Ass ... or Jackass, for short ... are a lot of things, but at least we now have some undeniable proof that they're not insane.

no the quote is "genuine risk remains the best filly in the spring classics, and she's not even the best filly all time." I don't see an "I would think" anywhere in there. And maybe she is, I'm gonna look into this further. But not to dispute your point but to inform my own.

Freddy, She isn't now in my book but if she entered and won the Belmont and finished out her career with respectability on her own terms, yes I think, that is I THINK, she would go down as the greatest ever by many, many people. Obviously it won't happen, which I am glad about. That is really my only point here. I'm not speaking FOR EVERYONE.

i obviously was referring to the first part of the post, where i said 'i would think'.
genuine risks record in the three tc races speaks for itself. of course the last sentence was my opinion alone. i guess i should have put the ubiquitous IMO in there?

Then I hope you don't complain next time an owner retires a horse with a minor injury. It's the next step. You can't have it both ways. It can't be "certifiably insane" to run a sound horse three times in five weeks, then chickenish to retire a horse because of minor injury.

The Preakness was clearly no walk in the park for her, 'stupid.

She would've been very vulnerable in a long 12f affair so soon after that taxing effort.

Not to mention the very real possibility that she may not want that kind of distance to begin with.

Asmussen, not being as dumb as he looks, surely realized this and made the prudent decision in this spot.



Not sure why you're bringing up premature retirements, tho?

Those two horses were exceptions to what's happened over the past 10-15 years to 3yos that compete in those three races (counting the Oaks because of it's timing.) Even two of them seem to knock many out.

How about adding Charismatic, Point Given, Monarchos, Real Quiet, Silver Charm, Empire Maker, Giacomo, and Big Brown as horses that ran in all three over the past dozen years and couldn't finish out their 3yo seasons. Does that help the counter argument any? How about some more horses that ran in at least two of the TC races with one of them being the Belmont that didn't finish out their 3yo seasons? Horses like Bluegrass Cat, Jazil, Rags to Riches.

It's very admirable that you are a passionate New York racing fan. Thus you are upset that the race in your backyard has become greatly diminished. Most racing folks agree that this was the right move albeit the owner/trainer are traditionally A-holes. Your responses are taking on a hostile tone. The decision was made so let's move on to constructive discussions.

Empire Maker didn't run in all three, and he was made out of glass anyway, I'm pretty sure Silver Charm had a nice career, Charismatic had a freak injury, Giacomo was slow before the TC and slow after it and he did "finish" his three-year-old season with a good showing in the BCC, Big Brown and Bluegrass Cat both came back in two months to win the Haskell and the former had notoriously bad feet and was retired early because of a stud deal. Sorry, this ain't doing it. And why isn't everyone who's applauding this decision so loudly equally decrying the decision to run Mine That Bird? He's a nice little horse, yet nobody seems to mind him facing the supposedly inevitable TC knockout.

:rolleyes:

I should have included Empire Maker in the second group and not the first. Sure, Silver Charm and Real Quiet came back the next year but neither of them ran again after the Belmont in their 3yo season. I don't consider SC coming back in the Malibu as running again. Charismatic's injury may have been a fluke. Giacomo was slow but for some reason, I don't remember him running again as a 3yo. You can make excuses for any or all of them. Fluke injuries, fake injuries, whatever. The facts are that all of those that I named didn't finish their 3yo seasons. Running one or two more races is not finishing it. Big Brown, Bluegrass Cat, Empire Maker, Rags, and Point Given all came back after the Belmont but they didn't finish their seasons.

I also wouldn't run Mine that Bird. I don't think there is anything at all to gain by running him or Dunkirk or any horse that a trainer has high hopes for later. If it's a situation like the Zito horses or where you don't think you really have a top level horse and know that now is a good chance to catch a sorry field in an irrelevant race, yeah, I'd run.

They're not excuses. They're extremely important circumstances you have to consider. You can't just rattle off names and completely ignore the value or previous health of the horse when attempting to use "they didn't finish their seasons!" as a knockout blow to running in two TC races. It's ridiculous.

the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.

Thank you, well said.

I think winning the TC is a big deal. I don't think winning the Belmont when it's not part of winning a TC is a big deal. It used to be. But it's not anymore. When I first started watching racing, the BC was new. For many people, including myself, while the BC was the year end championship, the fall races at Belmont were almost nearly as important. The JCGC was for years the championship defining race. During those years, the race was 12f. It made the Belmont a lot more significant to me because you wanted to know which 3yos could step up to that distance to take on the top older horses in the JCGC. But then they stopped running the JCGC at that distance. So for me, the Belmont didn't matter anymore. The only time it matters to me is when it's the final test for a 3yo trying to win the crown. Otherwise, it becomes much ado about nothing. Doesn't mean that some good horses haven't run in it and won it. But, especially the last 20 years, some pretty average to mediocre horses have also won it. I think that more horses win that race that would be considered below the standard for what we'd expect for the race than maybe any other top race.

Super post, Danzig.

--Dunbar

thanks ateam and dunbar. just proves the adage that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while. :D

I am 34 and know that Azeri would bury RA. Not o mention the other fillies mentioned ie Ruffian.

please tell me that i'm reading this wrong-azeri would bury ruffian? or do you mean ruffian would bury rachel?

RA= Rachel Alexandra.

I don't think Azeri would bury Ruffian but it is a nice match-up to imagine.

Ruffian would destroy RA as well I think.

No doubt. Because many fans these days are unfamiliar with Ruffian, except through books, youtube, etc., her brilliance is treated more as lore than fact. Make no mistake. Ruffian was all that.

Here is a list of all of the horses that have run in all three TC races since the start of 2000:

Impeachment
Monarchos
Point Given
AP Valentine
Dollar Bill
War Emblem
Proud Citizen
Medaglia d'Oro
Funny Cide
Scrimshaw
Smarty Jones
Giacomo
Afleet Alex
Hard Spun
Curlin
Big Brown

Here is a list of those that ran in the Derby and Preakness and skipped the Belmont during that same span:

Fusaichi Pegasus
Captain Steve
High Yield
Hal's Hope
Congaree
Harlan's Holiday
Peace Rules
Ten Cents a Shine
Lion Heart
Imperialism
Borrego
Song of the Sword
Closing Argument
Wilko
High Fly
Greeley's Galaxy
Noble Causeway
Sun King
Going Wild
High Limit
Brother Derek
Sweetnorthernsaint
Street Sense
Circular Quay
Gayego

Here's the list of those that ran in the Derby, skipped the Preakness, then ran in the Belmont during that same span:

Aptitude
Wheelaway
Curule
Commendable
Invisible Ink
Thunder Blitz
Balto Star
Perfect Drift
Essence of Dubai
Empire Maker
Ten Most Wanted
Birdstone
Master David
Andromeda's Hero
Bluegrass Cat
Steppenwolfer
Jazil
Deputy Glitters
Bob and John
Tiago
Rags to Riches
Denis of Cork
Tale of Ekati
Anak Nakal

Here's the list of those that skipped the Derby then ran in the Preakness and Belmont over that same span:

Hugh Heffner
Magic Weisner
Rock Hard Ten
Eddington
CP West
Macho Again
Icabad Crane

Here's a list of posters that give a fug:

1.

Assuming Barbaro belongs in the first flight it is obviously the superior flight of horses.

I agree with you that there are some breakdowns that are freak injuries. But I wouldn't consider Charismatic's breakdown a freak injury. Did you see Charismatic train the week leading up to the Belmont? That horse was as sore as any horse I have ever seen.

I agree with you that Giacomo was never really that great a horse to begin with so it's hard to say if the Triple Crown ruined him or not. The TC certainly knocked him out badly. He didn't even run after the Belmont until February of the next year. His respectable 4th place finish in the BC Classic was not in his 3 year old year. It was in his 4 year old year.

I would agree with you about Big Brown and Bluegrass Cat. Both came back to win again. After Big Brown's wins in the summer I think he ended up with another quarter crack. But I think he could have come back and run again if it wasn't for his stud deal.

I would agree with you that horses who retired sound due to stud deals should obviously not be mentioned on lists of horses that the Triple Crown ruined. But there are plenty of horses that the TC knocked out that were never the same again. There is no doubt that the Triple Crown is grueling. There isn't a single trainer that would dispute that. The only question is whether the TC is so grueling that it causes irreperable damage. I would say that in some cases it does and in some cases it doesn't. It depends on the horse.

but in many cases i believe that horses who suffer an injury and subsequently retire only do so because of successes in the t.c. races which would then warrant a better stud deal. many times it is admitted that a horse could come back from an injury-but 'we were going to retire him, so there's no point'. or there's 'he wouldn't make the bc, so there's no point'. either way, the horse was done at three. or maybe a horse seems just a bit off, so they retire rather than risk a loss-same excuse given. something isnt quite right in their mind, so they don't want to risk it.

but in many cases i believe that horses who suffer an injury and subsequently retire only do so because of successes in the t.c. races which would then warrant a better stud deal. many times it is admitted that a horse could come back from an injury-but 'we were going to retire him, so there's no point'. or there's 'he wouldn't make the bc, so there's no point'. either way, the horse was done at three. or maybe a horse seems just a bit off, so they retire rather than risk a loss-same excuse given. something isnt quite right in their mind, so they don't want to risk it.

i think when people say phantom injury-it's possible their belief is that something minor is made out to be something that would force retirement, and in many cases it just isn't that serious. but we also know that horses can be injured and not come back as well-again, as i said above, it has to do with risk.
as for grueling- i don't know that the tc is any more gruelling than any series of races. horses are injured after running a series before getting to the t.c.-old fashioned for example. the progression from 6/7 f to 1 1/8 can be just as demanding for these horses.

You don't know if the TC is more grueling than other series of races? Is there another series of races that even comes close to the TC in terms of being demanding on the horse? They run 3 times in 5 weeks and finish with a 1 1/2 mile race. And the horses aren't even fully mature yet. There's no other series of races that even comes close to that.