Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSC
Personally I can't wait to bet against Rachel, she's had one great scenario after the other with the only adversity coming in the Preakness. She's going into the Travers(?) as the big name, everyone's favorite horse, that she's going to be overbet, if she gets abit of adversity the result could be as close as The Preakness that any value bettor must be salavating at the chance to take her on.
|
You have to be careful with these words... lots of Rachel fans out there (myself included). But, I agree. I thought the same thing about Zenyatta a few weeks ago, but she overcame and often times the great ones do but I'd be willing to take my chances.
If you consider the Haskell... sure, the fractions were awfully quick, but Munnings held on for third. The difference between the Haskell/Preakness was there were no quality closers in the Haskell. In the Preakness, Mine That Bird put in a legitimate run and almost got there.
My ultimate opinion on all of this is that Rachel Alexandra should be in the Travers because it's the Travers. There's a Woodward next year for her. And plus, Quality Road, whom I believe is an extremely talented race horse, is the only one she hasn't beat and I would like to see the match-up. I know that Quality Road could be light on seasoning but that nagging "what if" is out there.
I get the Kensei argument and the stud value for winning a grade one, but Jess Jackson wrote a $10 million check, so the stud value and wishing the purses were higher stuff is weak in my opinion. Money is not a concern. Then again, he's a business man, and I can't fault that line of thinking.
Only in horse racing can the best horse have legitimate reasoning for skipping the biggest races. In any other sport the biggest events will have the biggest stars - guaranteed. Barring injury, the US Open will never not have Tiger Woods etc.