[King Glorious]

I think it was stupid for Crist to say this:

The idea that Rachel Alexandra "ducked" the Travers for an easier spot in the Woodward is preposterous. The seven 3-year-olds who ran in the Travers had combined to win 21 races, $3.5 million, and 10 graded stakes. The seven older horses she will face in the Woodward Saturday have won 44 races, $8.5 million, and 14 graded stakes. It's not a stellar group, but it's a better one than assembled for the Travers.

Duh. They are all older horses and have had many more races. They've got 23 more wins but only four more graded stakes races. Comparing the fields in that way was completely stupid.

I also think it was stupid for Beyer to say this:

3-year-old fillies who beat top males have usually tailed off after their great triumphs. Winning Colors captured the 1988 Kentucky Derby brilliantly and never won another race of consequence. Rags to Riches defeated Curlin in the 2007 Belmont Stakes, lost her next start, and never raced again.

Is he really going to hold her losses to Personal Ensign and her brilliant Preakness effort against her and just hold on to the fact that she never won a big race again? He acts like she just fell off and was never the same and that's just not true. Didn't Seattle Slew lose his first start after the TC? Didn't Sunday Silence lose his first start after running in the TC races? Didn't Smarty Jones run in the TC, concluding with a very hard race in the Belmont and never run again? For Beyer to insinuate that it was because Rags ran against the boys that caused her to lose her next start and never run again is just, in a word, stupid.