I'll be the First to ask?
 

Can Rachel Alexandra take on the boys in the near future Triple Crown races? I think she should stay with the fillies unless not much else comes out of the last few preps. IWR has to be the 1st on the list but with POTN out there's one less to worry about in the Derby.

when did they say he was out? as for rachel alexandra, i would like to see her take on the colts, but i doubt she does any time soon.

I think he means P-Moose

i think so too, but wanted to make sure.

Yeah Moose my bad. I don't follow the Poly Horses too much.

as a fan I'd love to see it but I think she'll head to the Oaks for now as it appears there for the taking.

The connections will point for the Oaks, where she will be at very low odds. Then if she does well, then they could consider the Rags to Riches path of 2 years ago.

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

100% agree

If it were my decision, this is what I would probably do.

I wonder how many more phone calls they will be getting for her tonight? :$:

For all the reasons you've layed out Brian, no benefit at all. Totally agree.

Too much talent in the Kentucky Derby this year, but she should have run in the Arkansas Derby instead of the Fantasy.

Now I think she just goes to the Oaks and continues against fillies the rest of the year.

Just hate to see her eyeball a cheap speed horse in the KY derby only to tire at the stretch.

What ever happened to that filly Sara Louise?

I dont know that purse money or increasing her value would be the reason to go to the derby.

If I were the owner, I'd run in the Derby because, well, the Derby is the Derby and the Oaks is the Oaks...

The Derby is the one race everyone wants to win, and its more special IMO, to do it with a filly. There is much more history in that than a filly winning the Oaks.

Why not try if you have a horse you think can really compete?

So who's she's going to face in the Oaks? After the Ashland Stardom Bound is down a couple rungs on the ladder?

in Dubai i believe

I guess I just don't see the benefit of potentially getting herself in a ton of trouble, especially with the way the front end will likely set up in this year's Derby, just for a chance to win a race people want to win.

If she didn't look like such an overwhelming winner of the Oaks, I may feel differently. If I thought she stood a realistic chance of getting beaten in the Oaks, then why the hell not? Take your chance at getting beat in the Derby. Instead, she looks nearly impossible to beat, she hasn't taken a deep breath in a race in ages, and is a virtual lock to add the KY Oaks to her resume.

I'll take being a huge favorite in a race as prestigious as the Oaks over being one of the top 5 choices in the Derby just to say I did any day. I'd rather romp in the Oaks than take my chances getting beat in the Derby and then having nothing at all to show for it.

The Oaks is not some overnight stake at Arlington in the summer.

Justwhistledixie should be the second choice (unless Stardom Bound attracts stupid bettors with deep pockets).

Justwhistledixie has won five races in a row.

I never said the Oaks was a bad race... but it sure isnt the Derby.

If I had a horse I thought could really win the Derby I'd race her there.

Reach for the stars - first filly to win the Triple Crown.

You don't have many chances in your lifetime to win the Kentucky Derby. Some people only have 1 chance. Might as well take a shot.

I agree. Losing the Derby would not devalue her at all, winning would not only increase her value but make her a hero after last year. Winning the Triple Crown would be priceless.

Last year would have been neat.
This year its way tough.

Wait for the Belmont, after the carnage.

Has a filly ever run in all three legs of the Triple Crown?

Genuine Risk...1st, 2nd, 2nd.

Is Rachel Alexandra better than Genuine Risk?

let's not get ahead of ourselves.

It would be fun to see Carlsbad go in the Kentucky Oaks.

In many recent years she may have rated a good shot, but this group of colts is looking pretty darned strong.

Yeah, for the six furlongs or so that she'd be relevant.

NT

I very much doubt that NT.

Her one two turned race she was running strong at the end of the race and she seems to be very push button. She's not speed crazy at all.

This filly could be a lot better than most people think.

At the very least, RA wouldn't get away with a criminally slow lead again.

Admirable restraint is this answer ...

Genuine Risk ran third against males in a G1 race before she even attempted the TC . Her trainer was upset by this and almost didn't attempt the TC series ..

Rachel,as good as she seems has yet to win a G1 against her own sex, and has campaigned in lesser arenas overall ...

Is Rachel Alexandra better than Genuine Risk ???

As much as I like her, at this point in her career, I would say not even as good...

Her trainer basically laughed at the idea that she run in the Oaks, so I doubt it happens, but even if it does, Rachel Alexandra registered a handy win sitting just off the pace in her 2009 debut. She hasn't shown that rating just off the pace will be a problem.

Further, 47 and change at Oaklawn is not criminally slow whatsoever.

NT

Interesting. I read somewhere they were giving it consideration.

She doesn't seem likely though.

RA was walking.

I do hope the threadstarter realizes he's not the first to ask this.

A couple of years ago, Coolmore had Ravel and Rags to Riches. They decided not to run Rags in the SA Derby and instead sent Ravel there. The owners of Zenyatta don't want to run her against the boys in the big races and I'd assume that them having Tiago for those races plays at least some part in their decision. While I do understand it from the business side, the sporting side of me says that if you have a race you want to win, you take your best chance to win it. Rachel may be odds on for the Oaks and very likely to win it but she's also got a good shot to do something special in the Derby. Why not take a shot? If she loses, why can't she come back to her own division in all the big races in NY this summer? People act like losing the Derby is the end of the world. It's not. And if she wouldn't even have to win the Derby. Even finishing 2nd or 3rd would greatly increase the respect she'd get. Look at Eight Belles last year. And if she were to win the race......it would be historic. You don't get many chances to make history. If she were a colt that was looking at being the 6th or 7th choice, nobody would hesitate to say that he should be going instead of skipping the race to be odds on in the Derby Trial or the Withers or the Peter Pan. Only one horse will win the Derby and nobody is worried that the 19 that lose will be ruined. Go for it.

I'd give her time off until the summer races. Why bother risking this pwecious wittle horsie in the the Oaks? The Derby? Insanity!!! She's just a wittle baybay.

I'm not disagreeing in general with the premise of your post, I just feel differently -- but c'mon, aren't you being just a smidge intellectually dishonest in trying to compare the Kentucky Oaks for a 3yo filly with the Derby Trial, Peter Pan, or Withers?

I don't have a problem with anyone who thinks she should go to the Derby, I just don't. On the other hand, your comparison at the end of outrageous.