Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel
personally, i think he should of retired her before. thats what i was saying. heres the thing win or lose, what does it prove? the horse has proven greatness. sorry, about the "emotions" comment. i love the horse too. but, i felt she was in trouble after the woodward. just by the number of races i've watched and the long layoff. posted it here months and months ago and got attacked as some sort of zenyatta lover. i just call it like i see it. yes, i did attack some of the rachel "fanatics". because judgment becomes clouded by fandum.
|
See I'm of the opinion that just because there is nothing left to prove, per se, that doesn't mean she should be retired. They aren't raced to prove things are they?
I don't see anything wrong with running as long as she is competitive. She was competitive. She was beat what, less than 2 lengths combined in her three races?
Was there anything left to prove for Cigar in 1996? Probably not, but I'm glad he came back. He wasn't the same horse late in that season, but he ran his eyeballs out in the JCGC and Breeders Cup and didn't disgrace himself at all.
When all is said and done we don't make the decisions, which is probably a good thing. But ego (on both sides) prevented a match up the fans called for, for over a year. And it feels like ego retired Rachel before she had a chance to finish out the year on a track she had one of her defining races.