Rachel Alexandra Retired

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

no doubt it would have been a great event and horse racing would have had some attention that day... but it would still have been just one day. I just disagreed with the sentence of hers that I highlighted (The match-up would have done wonders for the sports popularity and general public opinion, they failed.) not her whole post. The two should have met. But it wasnt going to make anything popular, except maybe for 2 minutes. The gambling aspect is the only way this sport can become popular again... these smart marketers at tracks need to figure out how to make that happen.

Both owners are still terrible for never making it happen... I just feel it like it would have satisfied us horse racing junkies, and not too much else.

Are you all so blinded by wagering that you don't realize the way to save this sport is to make it appealing to the youth?!?! The value of a lifelong fan with true passion for the thoroughbred racehorse is much more important to this sports future than anything else. There will always be those interested in solely the gambling aspect of this game, there are those horse lovers that could not care even a little about placing a bet. But the real beauty of it all is that when exciting races happen between THE BEST horses your going to see a little bit of both come out in more than the majority of viewers. NO singular race drastically changes the popularity status of this game (I can see where what I said was read as that), but it is more the accumulation of consistent great rivalries and great races that will bit by bit bring more and more fans out of the woodwork. Without getting the two best horses of this decade to race against each other we are going nowhere but backwards.