[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh didn't Afleet Alex break down during his three year old season? Maybe the training contributed to the injury as opposed to the oppisite view. I mean if his bone density was so strong , why did he break down in the first place? Please dont give me the Preakness arguement because he looked pretty good in the Belmont 3 weeks later.

This is the same question that I asked all of last year. People kept talking about how Ritchey was doing all of this unconventional stuff and that is why Alex thrived so much and did so well. They praised him for being so in tune with exactly what the horse wanted and needed...........and the horse didn't make it past July of his 3yo season. So what did he do that was so right? I'm not saying he did things wrong, although I did think it was stupid to be working that fast and that far off of a layoff. But what did he do that was so special? And if it worked so well, why did the horse still break down? And as Cannon Shell pointed out, IF they knew that the damage had been done in the Preakness and yet they still pushed him to the Belmont, then all that talk about them "doing what's best for the horse" was just BS. Which I thought it was all along anyway. Those were new owners and they were doing what was best for them, from pushing to the Belmont to announcing over and over again that they were planning on running later in the year and the next, even though I'm sure they had it already decided that he was done. Jeremy Rose pretty much admitted as much after one of those bullet workouts when he said that Alex felt stronger than before the injury and was ready to go but the insurance company said no. That was the whole thing that irritated me last year when people kept talking about how Cash is King was to be commended for doing the right thing. They did nothing but make a bad situation worse.