Jackson passes on Belmont with Rachel Alexandra

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

who would these 'most people' be? i would think most racing fans who follow the sport would know better. i would expect non-racing fans to not even know who rachel alexandra is-perhaps they would guess she was a russian czarina?

genuine risk remains the best filly in the spring classics, and she's not even the best filly all time.

I didn't know you were the beginning and the end of the subject. No one told me.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

I didn't know you were the beginning and the end of the subject. No one told me.

You're the one who's making claims about what "most people" would think. Apparently it's fine for you to be the authority on how Rachel would be perceived, but no one else.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Being that she would be the only Filly to have done that. Yes, those two races would have put her down as the greatest filly ever in most folks books. Maybe not yours but certainly in most people's books.

Please she is beating swill.. I like Rachel and believe she is terrific but the best ever because she beat a midget birdstone colt.. have a heart

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

I didn't know you were the beginning and the end of the subject. No one told me.

lol
yeah, ok.

at any rate, she's skipping the belmont so she'll have to wait a bit longer for greatest ever status.

besides, i said 'i would think'. that doesn't exactly sound like an emphatic statement, does it?

[Smooth Operator]

They would've had to be certifiably insane to run her back in this race.


Jack and Ass ... or Jackass, for short ... are a lot of things, but at least we now have some undeniable proof that they're not insane.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
yeah, ok.

at any rate, she's skipping the belmont so she'll have to wait a bit longer for greatest ever status.

besides, i said 'i would think'. that doesn't exactly sound like an emphatic statement, does it?

no the quote is "genuine risk remains the best filly in the spring classics, and she's not even the best filly all time." I don't see an "I would think" anywhere in there. And maybe she is, I'm gonna look into this further. But not to dispute your point but to inform my own.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Please she is beating swill.. I like Rachel and believe she is terrific but the best ever because she beat a midget birdstone colt.. have a heart

Freddy, She isn't now in my book but if she entered and won the Belmont and finished out her career with respectability on her own terms, yes I think, that is I THINK, she would go down as the greatest ever by many, many people. Obviously it won't happen, which I am glad about. That is really my only point here. I'm not speaking FOR EVERYONE.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

no the quote is "genuine risk remains the best filly in the spring classics, and she's not even the best filly all time." I don't see an "I would think" anywhere in there. And maybe she is, I'm gonna look into this further. But not to dispute your point but to inform my own.

i obviously was referring to the first part of the post, where i said 'i would think'.
genuine risks record in the three tc races speaks for itself. of course the last sentence was my opinion alone. i guess i should have put the ubiquitous IMO in there?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

They would've had to be certifiably insane to run her back in this race.


Jack and Ass ... or Jackass, for short ... are a lot of things, but at least we now have some undeniable proof that they're not insane.

Then I hope you don't complain next time an owner retires a horse with a minor injury. It's the next step. You can't have it both ways. It can't be "certifiably insane" to run a sound horse three times in five weeks, then chickenish to retire a horse because of minor injury.

[Smooth Operator]

The Preakness was clearly no walk in the park for her, 'stupid.

She would've been very vulnerable in a long 12f affair so soon after that taxing effort.

Not to mention the very real possibility that she may not want that kind of distance to begin with.

Asmussen, not being as dumb as he looks, surely realized this and made the prudent decision in this spot.



Not sure why you're bringing up premature retirements, tho?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It clearly took a hell of a lot out of Curlin and Hard Spun two years back. They were never seen again, except for those 4 more combined graded stakes victories and 3 Grade I's in the summer and fall and 1-2 finish in the BC Classic.

Those two horses were exceptions to what's happened over the past 10-15 years to 3yos that compete in those three races (counting the Oaks because of it's timing.) Even two of them seem to knock many out.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Yeah, Curlin was so sound he made his debut in February of his three-year-old year and drifted out into the middle of the track in winning it.

The best counter-argument you can come up with is Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex, two horses anyone with a brain knew would probably never race after the Belmont, injury or no?

How about adding Charismatic, Point Given, Monarchos, Real Quiet, Silver Charm, Empire Maker, Giacomo, and Big Brown as horses that ran in all three over the past dozen years and couldn't finish out their 3yo seasons. Does that help the counter argument any? How about some more horses that ran in at least two of the TC races with one of them being the Belmont that didn't finish out their 3yo seasons? Horses like Bluegrass Cat, Jazil, Rags to Riches.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Then I hope you don't complain next time an owner retires a horse with a minor injury. It's the next step. You can't have it both ways. It can't be "certifiably insane" to run a sound horse three times in five weeks, then chickenish to retire a horse because of minor injury.

It's very admirable that you are a passionate New York racing fan. Thus you are upset that the race in your backyard has become greatly diminished. Most racing folks agree that this was the right move albeit the owner/trainer are traditionally A-holes. Your responses are taking on a hostile tone. The decision was made so let's move on to constructive discussions.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

How about adding Charismatic, Point Given, Monarchos, Real Quiet, Silver Charm, Empire Maker, Giacomo, and Big Brown as horses that ran in all three over the past dozen years and couldn't finish out their 3yo seasons. Does that help the counter argument any? How about some more horses that ran in at least two of the TC races with one of them being the Belmont that didn't finish out their 3yo seasons? Horses like Bluegrass Cat, Jazil, Rags to Riches.

Empire Maker didn't run in all three, and he was made out of glass anyway, I'm pretty sure Silver Charm had a nice career, Charismatic had a freak injury, Giacomo was slow before the TC and slow after it and he did "finish" his three-year-old season with a good showing in the BCC, Big Brown and Bluegrass Cat both came back in two months to win the Haskell and the former had notoriously bad feet and was retired early because of a stud deal. Sorry, this ain't doing it. And why isn't everyone who's applauding this decision so loudly equally decrying the decision to run Mine That Bird? He's a nice little horse, yet nobody seems to mind him facing the supposedly inevitable TC knockout.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Empire Maker didn't run in all three, and he was made out of glass anyway, I'm pretty sure Silver Charm had a nice career, Charismatic had a freak injury, Giacomo was slow before the TC and slow after it and he did "finish" his three-year-old season with a good showing in the BCC, Big Brown and Bluegrass Cat both came back in two months to win the Haskell and the former had notoriously bad feet and was retired early because of a stud deal. Sorry, this ain't doing it. And why isn't everyone who's applauding this decision so loudly equally decrying the decision to run Mine That Bird? He's a nice little horse, yet nobody seems to mind him facing the supposedly inevitable TC knockout.

I should have included Empire Maker in the second group and not the first. Sure, Silver Charm and Real Quiet came back the next year but neither of them ran again after the Belmont in their 3yo season. I don't consider SC coming back in the Malibu as running again. Charismatic's injury may have been a fluke. Giacomo was slow but for some reason, I don't remember him running again as a 3yo. You can make excuses for any or all of them. Fluke injuries, fake injuries, whatever. The facts are that all of those that I named didn't finish their 3yo seasons. Running one or two more races is not finishing it. Big Brown, Bluegrass Cat, Empire Maker, Rags, and Point Given all came back after the Belmont but they didn't finish their seasons.

I also wouldn't run Mine that Bird. I don't think there is anything at all to gain by running him or Dunkirk or any horse that a trainer has high hopes for later. If it's a situation like the Zito horses or where you don't think you really have a top level horse and know that now is a good chance to catch a sorry field in an irrelevant race, yeah, I'd run.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

You can make excuses for any or all of them. Fluke injuries, fake injuries, whatever. The facts are that all of those that I named didn't finish their 3yo seasons. Running one or two more races is not finishing it. Big Brown, Bluegrass Cat, Empire Maker, Rags, and Point Given all came back after the Belmont but they didn't finish their seasons.

They're not excuses. They're extremely important circumstances you have to consider. You can't just rattle off names and completely ignore the value or previous health of the horse when attempting to use "they didn't finish their seasons!" as a knockout blow to running in two TC races. It's ridiculous.

[Danzig]

the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.

Thank you, well said.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Given your stance regarding the Belmont Stakes -- an anarchronistic distance -- winning the Triple Crown is not such a big deal, is it?

I think winning the TC is a big deal. I don't think winning the Belmont when it's not part of winning a TC is a big deal. It used to be. But it's not anymore. When I first started watching racing, the BC was new. For many people, including myself, while the BC was the year end championship, the fall races at Belmont were almost nearly as important. The JCGC was for years the championship defining race. During those years, the race was 12f. It made the Belmont a lot more significant to me because you wanted to know which 3yos could step up to that distance to take on the top older horses in the JCGC. But then they stopped running the JCGC at that distance. So for me, the Belmont didn't matter anymore. The only time it matters to me is when it's the final test for a 3yo trying to win the crown. Otherwise, it becomes much ado about nothing. Doesn't mean that some good horses haven't run in it and won it. But, especially the last 20 years, some pretty average to mediocre horses have also won it. I think that more horses win that race that would be considered below the standard for what we'd expect for the race than maybe any other top race.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.

Super post, Danzig.

--Dunbar