Crist: The BC deserves NOT to have RA

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

No, that talk is foolish, but I'm not the one who said "champions should race against champions," as Jackson did when he bought her. I think Jackson wants to "challenge" her, but not too much. They have carefully managed where and when they race against the boys; the Preakness was a softer spot than the Belmont (hell, it was viewed as being such a soft race post-Derby that Barry Irwin was going to enter Hull until Rachel showed up), and putting her in any Saratoga spot other than the Travers, a race which by their own admission they are considering, would be opting for the path of lesser resistance.

you gotta be kidding. she's raced in marquee events-challenge her but not too much? what is she supposed to do, run in the dandy saturday and the haskell sunday? she's exhibited the consistency that no other horse this year has shown, against the top colts. yes, a few were sidelined-but she's beated every horse they faced pretty easily. hell, her average margin of victory this year is over 9 lengths. i don't think the travers will develop as being the toughest race-summer bird may not go, and a few others including munnings are dropping back in distance.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you gotta be kidding. she's raced in marquee events-challenge her but not too much? what is she supposed to do, run in the dandy saturday and the haskell sunday? she's exhibited the consistency that no other horse this year has shown, against the top colts. yes, a few were sidelined-but she's beated every horse they faced pretty easily. hell, her average margin of victory this year is over 9 lengths. i don't think the travers will develop as being the toughest race-summer bird may not go, and a few others including munnings are dropping back in distance.

No, my point is that as between the Preakness and the Belmont, the Preakness was the more opportune race in which to challenge the boys - and they opted for the Preakness (and having made that decision, I think they did the right thing by the filly in skipping the Belmont). Fast-forward to the summer, as between the Haskell and the Travers, the Haskell presented the more opportune race for her (on a speed-favoring oval at 9F against a stretch-out sprinter and a horse that had not competed since the Belmont and who was clearly prepping for the Travers).

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Why it is comical? Why are DIRT horses the only ones WORTHY in BEYER LAND?

I'm not missing anything. Poly isn't dirt the same way a dome is not an open stadium (grass/dirt is not artificial surface).

You stone age MoFo's really need to get with the program. The game is changing and you just don't want to go along.

POLY IS HERE TO STAY. MONEY TALKS.

You don't get that I personally think poly is OK for eacing and intially was 100% for it as i thought it was safer for the animal. I also thought that poly would lead to bigger fields as more horses would be sound to run on it.

Rachel not running on poly has nothing to do with if it is acceptable surface.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

No, my point is that as between the Preakness and the Belmont, the Preakness was the more opportune race in which to challenge the boys - and they opted for the Preakness (and having made that decision, I think they did the right thing by the filly in skipping the Belmont). Fast-forward to the summer, as between the Haskell and the Travers, the Haskell presented the more opportune race for her (on a speed-favoring oval at 9F against a stretch-out sprinter and a horse that had not competed since the Belmont and who was clearly prepping for the Travers).

I don't know about that - a lot of people were saying the Belmont was a better route for her than the Preakness when Jess first bought her since she wasn't initially being pointed there and hadn't been asked to turn around that quickly since she was a two year old.

Also, Big Drama is one of the horses who most conflicts with her running style and no horse like that was being pointed to the Belmont - so I don't see why you think he chose the more "opportune" spot.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I don't know about that - a lot of people were saying the Belmont was a better route for her than the Preakness when Jess first bought her since she wasn't initially being pointed there and hadn't been asked to turn around that quickly since she was a two year old.

Also, Big Drama is one of the horses who most conflicts with her running style and no horse like that was being pointed to the Belmont - so I don't see why you think he chose the more "opportune" spot.

Pimlico is 9.5f and generally considered speed favoring compared to the belmont at 12f. Regardless of pedigree, 12f was the unknown and was certainly the bigger risk between the two. They didnt know if SHE would like it but they also didnt know for sure which of the potential competitors would like it. In the Preakness, they pretty much knew what the competition was going to do except for Big Drama who was a sprinter stretching out. I think they knew that she could rate off of him.

I agree with Parsix. They have chosen their two spots very well and that certainly is no knock against the connections-that is what they are supposed to do. The Travers, pitting the respective winner of each classic, would be great for the sport. If the filly is well and you arent going to run in the BC, run her there.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Pimlico is 9.5f and generally considered speed favoring compared to the belmont at 12f. Regardless of pedigree, 12f was the unknown and was certainly the bigger risk between the two. They didnt know if SHE would like it but they also didnt know for sure which of the potential competitors would like it. In the Preakness, they pretty much knew what the competition was going to do except for Big Drama who was a sprinter stretching out. I think they knew that she could rate off of him.

I agree with Parsix. They have chosen their two spots very well and that certainly is no knock against the connections-that is what they are supposed to do. The Travers, pitting the respective winner of each classic, would be great for the sport. If the filly is well and you arent going to run in the BC, run her there.

I agree with you that that is what any connection should do.

While they didn't know the entire field in the Belmont, the Preakness generally is a more quality race. They were taking on the top 4 finishers in the Derby whereas the trend in the Belmont the past few years is a field of horses that didn't run well in the Derby or plodders that the connections feel the distance will help them. They could have taken the gamble that by the time the Belmont rolled around, the better horses would have dropped out and they would have a fresh horse.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

While they didn't know the entire field in the Belmont, the Preakness generally is a more quality race. They were taking on the top 4 finishers in the Derby whereas the trend in the Belmont the past few years is a field of horses that didn't run well in the Derby or plodders that the connections feel the distance will help them. They could have taken the gamble that by the time the Belmont rolled around, the better horses would have dropped out and they would have a fresh horse.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more, both in terms of the relative strength of the Preakness versus the Belmont in general, or specifically with respect to this year's race.

Given trainers' desire for more time between races, the Preakness has become a race that generally is the weakest of the Triple Crown races, relegated to being less about Derby rematches and more about whether the Derby winner can keep the Triple Crown hope alive. The recent trend is for the better horses that did not win the Derby to pass the Preakness to run with five weeks rest in the Belmont.

The Preakness had a "deeper" field this year because of the perceived weakness of the 50-1 Derby winner. When the fact that highly regarded horses such as Dunkirk passed on the Preakness (and Quality Road had still not been taken out of consideration for the Belmont) was coupled with the distance, the Belmont would have been the far more ambitious spot. Rachel's presence is what made the Preakness this year. Without her, it would have been perceived as a very weak race.

(And I'll repeat that, after having run Rachel in the Preakness, I thought Jackson did the right thing by passing the Belmont.)

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I couldn't disagree with this statement more, both in terms of the relative strength of the Preakness versus the Belmont in general, or specifically with respect to this year's race.

Given trainers' desire for more time between races, the Preakness has become a race that generally is the weakest of the Triple Crown races, relegated to being less about Derby rematches and more about whether the Derby winner can keep the Triple Crown hope alive. The recent trend is for the better horses that did not win the Derby to pass the Preakness to run with five weeks rest in the Belmont.
The Preakness had a "deeper" field this year because of the perceived weakness of the 50-1 Derby winner. When the fact that highly regarded horses such as Dunkirk passed on the Preakness (and Quality Road had still not been taken out of consideration for the Belmont) was coupled with the distance, the Belmont would have been the far more ambitious spot. Rachel's presence is what made the Preakness this year. Without her, it would have been perceived as a very weak race.

(And I'll repeat that, after having run Rachel in the Preakness, I thought Jackson did the right thing by passing the Belmont.)

2008 - This field was so terrible in both races and unfortunately the second best horse died
2007 - Second best horse (Curlin) wins Preakness - is second to a fresh Rags to Riches, who was the only top horse that skipped the Preakness, but she didn't run in the Derby either
2006 - Bernardini wins the Preakness - Jazil wins the Belmont - I think that says enough about the quality of those two races. The horses who skipped the Preakness were Bob and John and Steppenwolfer - hardly exuding with class
2005-2004 - essentially the same fields

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

2008 - This field was so terrible in both races and unfortunately the second best horse died
2007 - Second best horse (Curlin) wins Preakness - is second to a fresh Rags to Riches, who was the only top horse that skipped the Preakness, but she didn't run in the Derby either
2006 - Bernardini wins the Preakness - Jazil wins the Belmont - I think that says enough about the quality of those two races. The horses who skipped the Preakness were Bob and John and Steppenwolfer - hardly exuding with class
2005-2004 - essentially the same fields

Did you just knock Jazil???????

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did you just knock Jazil???????

I did.

I've never said he was the most talented thing to look through a bridle, I just liked him.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I did.

I've never said he was the most talented thing to look through a bridle, I just liked him.

I'm stunned by this turn of events

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

2006 - Bernardini wins the Preakness - Jazil wins the Belmont - I think that says enough about the quality of those two races. The horses who skipped the Preakness were Bob and John and Steppenwolfer - hardly exuding with class

Bernardini was a longshot in the Preakness, having won only a four-horse edition of the Withers. The rest of the Preakness field was so bad that Hemingway's Key ran third.

Both the second, third and fourth place horses from the Derby (Bluegrass Cat, Steppenwolfer and Jazil) skipped the Preakness to run in the Belmont.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I did.

I've never said he was the most talented thing to look through a bridle, I just liked him.

Hey, im learning to be objective as well. Someone brought up mineshaft and i didnt say a word.

What would you say was the better field this year, the belmont or the preakness?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm stunned by this turn of events

I'm showing my rebellious side.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Hey, im learning to be objective as well. Someone brought up mineshaft and i didnt say a word.

What would you say was the better field this year, the belmont or the preakness?

How can you even ask that question? If you want to say excluding Rachel which was the better field you have a valid question but with Rachel in the Preakness it was light years ahead of the Belmont.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What would you say was the better field this year, the belmont or the preakness?

Without Rachel, the Belmont was a better field.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did you just knock Jazil???????

i had to read that twice too

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Asmussen has nothing on her trainer.

Zenyatta has one of the absolute best .. and few if any are better at having a horse at their peak for one specific race.

I think its silly to think Zenyatta would not be better drugged up like his barn is, thats naive.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I think its silly to think Zenyatta would not be better drugged up like his barn is, thats naive.

The numbers say Zenyatta's trainer is clearly better than Asmussen .. and more likely to move a horse up.

Don't forget what RA accomplished for Hal Wiggins .. a guy who's horses lose two and a half times the takeout from a huge sample size.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

The numbers say Zenyatta's trainer is clearly better than Asmussen .. and more likely to move a horse up.

Don't forget what RA accomplished for Hal Wiggins .. a guy who's horses lose two and a half times the takeout from a huge sample size.

I just believe horses are better drugged than not, Azeri was better for Lukas as a 6 year old than for LDS as a 5 year old.