One of the greatest 11.25 length defeats by a filly in history

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That's exactly the kind of reasoning that DrugS is saying is going to happen next time she runs.

I know his reasoning, I agree at times a bad last race on paper is a great betting angle, but when a horse has never been higher than 4-1 on dirt in her life, what odds are good odds? Say what you want about Rachel Alexandra, horses that have hooked her have not fared well in their next races. Ie. Unrivaled Belle, Zardana...ect.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by CSC

I know his reasoning, I agree at times a bad last race on paper is a great betting angle, but when a horse has never been higher than 4-1 on dirt in her life, what odds are good odds? Say what you want about Rachel Alexandra, horses that have hooked her have not fared well in their next races. Ie. Unrivaled Belle, Zardana...ect.

True enough.

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

True enough.

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

One thing I do respect about Rachel and I say this in all sincerity, she runs hard and takes no prisoner's in her races. She is a career killer, and who knows what lies ahead for Life At 10. She won a race at 1 1/4 at Delaware on an easy slow lead. That enough should be enough to question if she is a true 1 1/4 horse. I do like her at Belmont BUT if she does run in the Beldame at 4-1 or less, I would steer clear of her. I can't see her as anything higher than 2nd or 3rd choice for that race.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by CSC

One thing I do respect about Rachel and I say this in all sincerity, she runs hard and takes no prisoner's in her races. She is a career killer, and who knows what lies ahead for Life At 10. She won a race at 1 1/4 at Delaware on an easy slow lead. That enough should be enough to question if she is a true 1 1/4 horse. I do like her at Belmont BUT if she does run in the Beldame at 4-1 or less, I would steer clear of her. I can't see her as anything higher than 2nd or 3rd choice for that race.

She does put horses away, even in defeat, very far away and they stay there for a long time. I am not sure enough bettors could recognize that trend though and think the odds you suggest are probably correct. If Blind Luck goes there LAT would float a little higher I think seeing what she can do at 10f.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

She does put horses away, even in defeat, very far away and they stay there for a long time. I am not sure enough bettors could recognize that trend though and think the odds you suggest are probably correct. If Blind Luck goes there LAT would float a little higher I think seeing what she can do at 10f.

The question should be how much does Life at 10 have in the tank after the PE, not whether it may or may not have been the most impressive 11.5 defeat in history? It may have been a compelling post by IDS in all his brilliance, however I never took it seriously at first or second glance.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

That doesn't strike me as odd for distance races with five-horse fields of very questionable quality.

[slotdirt]

Even the races she's won have featured huge gaps back to the second and third place horses. What was the margin back to third in that Monmouth race?