http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122501584.html
Um, Andy, in the second and third paragraphs of your article you say that "the key question in such debates is the most basic one: Who was the better horse? Who would have won in a head-to-head showdown?" … and "if they had faced each other on dirt, the winner probably would have been Rachel Alexandra".
Then, later in the piece, you go on to say that "running 1 1/4 miles on dirt is regarded as the definitive test of American thoroughbreds."
Now come on, Andy, level with us … can you honestly say … with a straight face … that Rachel probably would've handled Zenyatta in a 10-furlong contest on a dry, fast strip at, say, Churchill Downs or Saratoga?
Also, you unfairly dissed Zenyatta's competition while conveniently making no mention of the horrible fillies and mediocre (at very best) males Rachel faced all season long.
Summer Bird was probably best of the entire lot … and he was easy pickin's for her since he clearly needs at least ten panels to show his best.
If Rachel would've run into a legit 3yo colt like, say, a Bernardini … or a decent older horse … there would be no debate over HotY.
Don't get me wrong, man … really like your stuff … always have … but the spin in this one is a bit much…