[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The more I think about it, even though Rachel wasn't that impressive in the Preakness or Woodward, she may not have liked either of those tracks. I know that Borel said she didn't really handle the track at Pimlico. I didn't hear any comments from him regarding whether she liked the track at Saratoga, but I know that alot of horses don't handle that track, so she may not have liked the track there either.

So she really may have had a much bigger excuse than just going too fast early in those races. It may have been a combination of going too fast and not handling those tracks.

She may in fact be a totally different horse at tracks she likes such as Churchill, Belmont, and Monmouth.

She really did look like a different horse in those races.

So the more I think about it, if Zenyatta and Rachel faced other, I think there is a good chance it would come down to which track they ran at and how the race set up. If they ran at Santa Anita or Saratoga, my guess is that Zenyatta probably wins. But if they run at Churchill or Belmont, I think Rachel may win. The pace would obviously be a big factor too.

I was just going over Macho Again's PPs and watching some of his races. He is actually a much better horse than I realized. I had totally forgotten that he won the Stephen Foster. I think the race that Rachel ran in the Woodward was actually quite a bit better than I originally thought.

I dont know why she needs an excuse for the Preakness and the Woodward.. I mean not only did she WIN both races but she had by FAR and by Far I mean like 1000 times tougher trip than anyone in those races. The Preakness and the Woodward may have been her best 2 races when you look at the trip.. though I do feel the Haskell was her best race.