Quote:
|
Originally Posted by King Glorious
The part in bold is what makes this a debate that has no clear answer. If the award is truly for the most accomplished horse of that year, then Rachel is a clear winner. But the criteria is not clear enough, IMO. It says it's to be awarded to the best horse to race in North America and is open to all horses that have run at least one time in NA. You get a situation like last year. I thought that even with his running only once and her running only once, it was extremely clear that Raven's Pass and Goldikova were the best 3yo male and female to run in NA last year. Even with a win in the Classic, Zenyatta won't have accomplished as much as Rachel this year but by beating a better set of horses, even if it's only once, she can still make a very valid claim to being the best horse to run in this country this year. As I've said many times, if people want the award to be for the entire year, I'd have no problem with that but they need to change the criteria. To me, it's hypocrital to say that it's not about one day or one race after they've awarded many championships to horses simply because of one race.
|
It is based on a years worth of work. Sure we have a turf horse here and there that comes over for the BC and blows away the field, and they get Turf Champion. But longshot winners of the BC usually dont get voted champ. I dont think Volponi did, not sure about Cat Thief but I also dont think it happened there either. Usually the horse that wins the BC has also had a very good campaign all year (like Curlin in 2007, Invasor, etc, etc).. so it makes sense for them to be champ.