DRF WKND (Hersch): Not Unusual for Filly Champs to Struggle
 

Here is an interesting article in DRF. It talks about how it's not that surprising that Rachel Alexandra is not the same filly this year. The article talks about how many champion fillies were not the same the next year and in general how it's tough to get more than 2 good years out of horses, especially if you run them a lot.

http://drf.com/news/article/113789.html

A very good piece, putting RA (and others) in perspective.

This part,

Before the La Troienne, Jackson told the New York Times he had "no regrets" over Rachel Alexandra's 3-year-old campaign.

"I didn't overwork her," he said. "She was in peak condition and up to everything we threw her way, and she handled it beautifully."

made me wonder if Steve Asmussen would agree. The words of other trainers (McGaughey, Baffert, Lukas) on the subject, while certainly not a condemnation of RA's connections, are worthy of thoughtful consideration.

We all want to see greatness in thoroughbred racing. We hope to be a witness to a horse that has not just one great season, but several, a horse that we can speak of with reverent tones for many years to come. Will RA be one of those horses? I don't know . . .

but I sure hope so.

its the same thing i said in this forum months ago but people don't want to hear it. how can people be around horse racing and be betting it for years and years not see it....do i have to run down the names of horses that have had the same problem over recent history? in this day and age, rachel pretty much ran a career last year. here running style and the way she was pushed through hard races was bound to take a toll and then the long lay off....it was pretty much common sense. but people don't want to hear it. thats fine because it brought about some good money making races.....lol. everyone makes fun of zenyatta and her schedule but the way they run her, she could go on for years barring injury. lukas does not mention ladys secret who he ran into submission. ps. when betting horses its better to figure out whats happening before the article comes out.....lol

i think the main issue at this point is they attempted to rush her back for the apple blossom. had they shown more patience in bringing her back to form, she may well not have these two losses on her resume.

How about just letting her run her race.

Could you imagine these geniuses if they owned Affirmed, when that colt lost the Grade 2 Malibu and San Fernando to start what was essentially his 4yo campaign?

Asmussen basically said there's nothing wrong with her. She hasn't been dominant as was expected to start the year, but that doesn't mean she is no longer competitive.

She has a long way to go before being lumped in the same as the 4yo versions of Winning Colors or Ajina or Proud Spell.

I agree, and also agree with Jack that it would be nice to let her run the way she runs best... free-wheeling. If you want to use performance figures as a gauge, looking at her sheet (Thoro-Graph) shows she's right in line with her efforts from last year with only the Oaks (-4.5) and Haskell (-4.0) earning bigger figs than what she's run this year (-1.0 first back & -1.5 last). What she hasn't done is show 'typical' forward progress as a 4yo, but she was abnormally fast for a 3yo filly to start with... (as fast as any in the game's modern history in fact). But notably, her 2 efforts this year are 'faster' on Thoro-Graph than her Woodward, Preakness and Fantasy and on a par with her Mother Goose.

Can we assume you'll be betting against Rachel again tomorrow?


--Dunbar

I still think that last race against the boys last year took a ton out of her engine. She pushed so hard to win that race and looked it at the end. It's just talking time to refuel her engine and desire.

That's what Shug McGaughey said, too. "... it's hard to say if she's going to come back. In the Woodward, she laid it on the ground that day as hard as a horse can."

This may indeed be the case, and we will know a little more tomorrow. But as a fan of the game, I prefer to watch the risks inherent with a truly remarkable season that featured race after race of historic significance than one great day. When Rachel ran vs the fillies, she won by margins never before seen in the history of great races like the KY Oaks. When she ran against the boys, she was even better becoming the first 3yo filly to dare what she did and succeeded doing. I honestly don't think anyone will try it again in my lifetime, much less pull it off.

and she did have a remarkable season-she certainly showed what a top horse can do, time after time.

I thought that RA's campaign was reasonable last year. It's not like she ran 12 times. She ran 8 times but in many of those races she was geared down and was not all out. I don't fault the way they handled her last year. I thought they chose an ambitious but reasonable campaign.

"Not all out"... "Geared down"... Nonsense, and I'm surprised that you would buy into that claptrap Richie.

He lost me at "little known Unrivaled Belle."
WTF? That is really an arrogant thing to print in the DRF. Much more appropriate for the Post.
And anyone who knows anything will tell you the difference with females is they are NEVER gelded.

While I agree that horses that are winning easily rarely would be running much faster under a drive, RA had quite a few really easy wins last year.

The Martha Washington was won by 8 with the comment "under wraps"
The FG Oaks was won by only 1 3/4 but was "eased up final 1/16th"
The Fantasy was won by 8 "easily"
The KY Oaks by 20 "on own, easily"
The Mother Goose by 19 "under wraps final 1/16th"

While she was still running fast in the stretch of those races she was under no pressure and that has to be a touch easier race than those like the preakness and Woodward.

It was an ambitious campaign, albeit against a weak group of horses, that seemingly was made possible by a string of very easy wins early in the season. She looked tanked after the Woodward understandably but had she been seriously tested in any of her races against fillies she never may have been able to get to that point.

Naturally the article looks silly in light of todays race where she was again very good.

You say it is "nonsense". How So?

I agree with you that there are times when people think a horse was not all out simply because the jockey didn't whip them. I don't agree with that. If a horse is being fairly vigourously hand-ridden, they are probably all out. Whipping the horse is usally not going to make much of a difference. But when a horse is under a hold coming down the stretch and is geared down, how could you say that it doesn't make a difference? It makes a huge difference.

It makes a huge difference in the morning too. If you have a great horse, you could get them to work 5 furlongs in :58 or you could get them to work in 1:02. It depends whether the jock asks them or not. A horse will obviously run much faster if you ask them than if you don't ask them. That is true in the morning and it is true in the afternoon.

Crinkle... trash can to this article thanks to Rachel returning to form today.

:tro:


she looked good today, looked like she should have against that field. and the time holds up as well. nice race for her.

Maybe she could've gone faster, but that doesn't mean she's not expending energy at the end of, say the Oaks or the Mother Goose. Holding a horse back can wear them out in ways that aren't immediately apparent. She doesn't want to slow down, that's not her thing, and the process of trying to go faster when Calvin won't let her is going to be tiring to an extent. The day Rachel likes slowing down is the day PG1985 becomes the Queen of England.