Originally Posted by Dunbar

Very much. But I'm willing to cut Jackson a lot of slack considering the spots he's already put Rachel in this year. Running her back on 2 weeks rest in the Preakness--many thought that was foolish. Then the Haskell and the Woodward.

Dare I say...he's done enough.

--Dunbar

Originally Posted by freddymo

Bob I hope you get one and I hope Chuck does as well. Let's dream.. You have your 3 year old filly machine you just won the logical Preakness, Haskell, Woodward. But the other champion is a turf mare are you going to the Turf Classic? Would you race a dirt horse on turf? Isn't Pro Ride NOT dirt the same way that Turf isnt dirt?
It is not about loving dirt. I have zero issue with POLY actually I think it is fine for some tracks. I just demand that it be considered a separate surface. Why the BC peopel were foolish enough not to comprehend this is frustrating and the sole cause for confusion. I actually would rather watch RA on try turf. I wonder if she could be as special.

If Jackson wanted to get her ready for BC he would need to ship her to CA. after the Wodward then look for a spot to see if she handled the stuff. Tom and Chuck contention is she already handled the stuff...Against what type. I am sure she could win a 10 claiming on the turf does that mean she handles turf? You have a once in a generation horse shouldn't she go in the Beldame against Zenyatta. Shouldn't we all be pissed that the Moss's are denying Zenyatta an opportunity to prove her greatness. Zenyatta has earned the right to face RA. The Beldame would be an awesome spot for her and racing. Instead you want Jess to skip the Beldame, and start prepping for a surface switch or just sending her there work her once or twice and send her out. Chuck says who cares if she loses they all lose, which is 100% true but it seems silly and it is all because the BC and racing seems to think dirt and poly are interchangable.

Originally Posted by GBBob

I would love to try RA on the turf too..why not Fred? If you have nothing to prove and it doesn't have any potential risk physically..go crazy with her. Obviously the 3 yr old and older dirt division horses are limited, so why not look outside the box for new challenges? If she runs 5th in the Arlington Million next year it won't hurt her breeding value at all.

Originally Posted by Sightseek

People are very unforgiving of losses. Look at how many people (stupidly) point out that she barely held on in the Preakness. Jackson isn't caring about the breeding value - floundering on a surface because you said "why the hell not" isn't going to earn you any extra points.

Look through the list of the Top 100 of all time - how many of those horses were specific to ONE surface. Are any of us thinking any less of them because of it? I sure hope the hell not.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Scav Euro's go to Pro ride/Poly because their horses are equipped to handle it. Not because they are sporting the BC

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why would you possibly NOT want to see her run and perhaps put all this zenyatta crap to rest once and for all? Just asking?

Originally Posted by Sightseek

People are very unforgiving of losses.

Originally Posted by GBBob

I could care less about being on a Top 100 list. That's not the point..it's a personal agenda he has about the surface..nothing more, nothing less

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I realize she isn't a 3-year-old, but I'd much rather have been able to see Zenyatta in the Hollywood Gold Cup or Pacific Classic.

The only great reason to want to see RA run in the Classic is from a gambling standpoint ... and it's so you can bet against her because she has very little shot of even hitting the Super hi 5 ticket in that absurd spot.

Who's to believe Jess Jackson though? Last year at this time he said he wasn't going to run Curlin in the Breeders Cup Classic. He caved. Why won't he cave again?

Originally Posted by Sightseek

People are very unforgiving of losses. Look at how many people (stupidly) point out that she barely held on in the Preakness. Jackson isn't caring about the breeding value - floundering on a surface because you said "why the hell not" isn't going to earn you any extra points.

Look through the list of the Top 100 of all time - how many of those horses were specific to ONE surface. Are any of us thinking any less of them because of it? I sure hope the hell not.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

This isnt about surface though. This is about winning the biggest races and beating the best opponents. Why wouldn't you want to see her doing this in the championship? I won't think any less of her if she loses and she has some massive built in excuses anyway for those that would.

Do you think that maybe she could actually win?

Originally Posted by GBBob

I could care less about being on a Top 100 list. That's not the point..it's a personal agenda he has about the surface..nothing more, nothing less

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I suppose the connections of Zenyatta have a personal agenda against wet race tracks and competition capable of running a Beyer better than 96.

Originally Posted by Sightseek

People are very unforgiving of losses. Look at how many people (stupidly) point out that she barely held on in the Preakness. Jackson isn't caring about the breeding value - floundering on a surface because you said "why the hell not" isn't going to earn you any extra points.

Look through the list of the Top 100 of all time - how many of those horses were specific to ONE surface. Are any of us thinking any less of them because of it? I sure hope the hell not.

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Who freakin cares if he has a personal agenda about the surface - you think it's a wonderful surface and that fine, so run your horses on it. If he thinks it was a bad decision to run the BC at Santa Anita again and doesn't support it than he can run HIS horse elsewhere. Like he is doing - and doing a damn good job at it.

Do you do what everyone tells you you should do with your horses?

Originally Posted by GBBob

He's a hypocrite. Last year he took all the glory for running Curlin as a 4 year old and waved the "good of the game" flag proudly. I'm not going to stand firm that poly is good for racing or bad for it...that is a very debateable and legitimate conversation, but in my mind there is no way you can say that not running her in the sport's Championship races is consistant with what he was claiming last year with Curlin.

And I would say the same thing to Zenyatta's connection if the BC was at CD this year and they wouldn't ship there.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Who cares what "people" say? She is a mare, she has no real value anyway because he would never sell her.

Looking through the top 100 makes you realize that most werent around when there were multiple surfaces. Hell turf racing in this country didnt become widespread till the 50's. And on that list are some who not only ran on two surfaces but excelled. Like Secretariat, Round Table, John Henry, Dr. Fager are 4 off the top of my head. Asking her to compete on poly is not such a stretch.

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Who freakin cares if he has a personal agenda about the surface - you think it's a wonderful surface and that fine, so run your horses on it. If he thinks it was a bad decision to run the BC at Santa Anita again and doesn't support it than he can run HIS horse elsewhere. Like he is doing - and doing a damn good job at it.

Do you do what everyone tells you you should do with your horses?

Originally Posted by Sightseek

At least you're fair with your criticism.

Originally Posted by Scav

What about the 'prior' BC's that were ran on dirt, like Sakhee, Giant's Causeway, George Washington (sigh)? That is just a few