Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I'm the most conservative person in the world when it comes to giving horses time between races. I hate running horses back quickly. But in this case, I would definitely run Rachel in the Preakness. She was under a strangle-hold in the Oaks. She wasn't even close to being all out. She could have won by another 5-10 lengths if she was asked. As others have said, that race was like a workout for her.
In addition, the Preakness should be an easy race for her. I don't think there will be a horse in there that can come within 8 lengths of her. I think she will be able to win under a strangle-hold again. I would have no concerns about bringing her back in 15 days in this case.
|
How can you possibly conclude that? Just cause she wasn't whipped? Have you looked at the fractions? She ran her last furlong in 12.16. To go 5 lengths faster she would have had to have gone in 11.36. To go 10 lengths faster she would have had to go in 10.56. Are we really to believe that is physically possible? If asked she may have moved up 2-3 lengths. This is like Bernardini all over. Everyone said he could have gone so much faster if asked even though the finishing fractions suggested that wasn't possible. Sure enough when finally asked he went no faster than he'd gone in his previous races.
Also, I love the idea of a 3yo filly doing the Whitney/Travers double. That would be awesome.