Jackson passes on Belmont with Rachel Alexandra

Rupert Pupkin · #1 05-29-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

How do you know what's in the best interest of the horse?

It's just common sense in my opinion. She just ran a really hard race against the boys on only two weeks rest. To bring her back in 3 weeks and ask her to run 1 1/2 miles would simply be asking too much. I can't tell you for sure that she wouldn't win, but I think there is a high probability that it would totally knock her out and then she probably wouldn't be able to run for a few months. The risk/reward of running her in the Belmont simply is not there IMO.

Handicappy · #2 05-29-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's just common sense in my opinion. She just ran a really hard race against the boys on only two weeks rest. To bring her back in 3 weeks and ask her to run 1 1/2 miles would simply be asking too much. I can't tell you for sure that she wouldn't win, but I think there is a high probability that it would totally knock her out and then she probably wouldn't be able to run for a few months. The risk/reward of running her in the Belmont simply is not there IMO.

Yep, she could run but then you wouldn't see her again until maybe October. A little rest now will save her for an exciting campaign. The Haskel, Travers? Man, how exciting would that be.

ateamstupid · #3 05-29-2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Yep, she could run but then you wouldn't see her again until maybe October. A little rest now will save her for an exciting campaign. The Haskel, Travers? Man, how exciting would that be.

Why? Why would one more race knock her out until October? This is ridiculous. How the hell do you say this with any certainty? No one gives a flying crap about the Haskell and Travers in the mainstream. We're all so damn excited when the Preakness ratings are up, then when they duck the last remaining nationally important race with the sound horse who brought those ratings, we applaud. This is ridiculous.

Handicappy · #4 05-29-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Why? Why would one more race knock her out until October? This is ridiculous. How the hell do you say this with any certainty? No one gives a flying crap about the Haskell and Travers in the mainstream. We're all so damn excited when the Preakness ratings are up, then when they duck the last remaining nationally important race with the sound horse who brought those ratings, we applaud. This is ridiculous.

I know it does sound ridiculous but if you talk to enough trainers they will tell you the same thing. The series takes alot out of horses who are bred fragile anyway. Besides, she was dead on her feet in the win circle at the Preakness. It is the right decision for the horse and if it wasn't for Jackson, would have been made last week.

ateamstupid · #5 05-29-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handicappy

I know it does sound ridiculous but if you talk to enough trainers they will tell you the same thing. The series takes alot out of horses who are bred fragile anyway. Besides, she was dead on her feet in the win circle at the Preakness. It is the right decision for the horse and if it wasn't for Jackson, would have been made last week.

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.

Handicappy · #6 05-29-2009, 06:23 PM

Quote:

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.

Curlin's effort in the Haskel was his dullest effort all year. He rebounded with a sound effort in the jockey cup gold cup against Lawyer Ron. But his dull effort had to do with his difficulty rebounding from that triple crown series. Now Rachel may be able to handle it better than Curlin because she has alot more bottom to her than Curlin. She raced 6 times as a two year old. However, if Jackson could see a way to run her and win, he would obviously do it. A Belmont victory would stamp her as the greatest filly of all time in most fan's books. A place she may get to anyway. Hard Spun still amazes me. I still can't see how a horse could run those fractions for so friggin long.

freddymo · #7 05-29-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Curlin's effort in the Haskel was his dullest effort all year. He rebounded with a sound effort in the jockey cup gold cup against Lawyer Ron. But his dull effort had to do with his difficulty rebounding from that triple crown series. Now Rachel may be able to handle it better than Curlin because she has alot more bottom to her than Curlin. She raced 6 times as a two year old. However, if Jackson could see a way to run her and win, he would obviously do it. A Belmont victory would stamp her as the greatest filly of all time in most fan's books. A place she may get to anyway. Hard Spun still amazes me. I still can't see how a horse could run those fractions for so friggin long.

I am not sure she is better then Rag too Riches

freddymo · #8 05-29-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Curlin's effort in the Haskel was his dullest effort all year. He rebounded with a sound effort in the jockey cup gold cup against Lawyer Ron. But his dull effort had to do with his difficulty rebounding from that triple crown series. Now Rachel may be able to handle it better than Curlin because she has alot more bottom to her than Curlin. She raced 6 times as a two year old. However, if Jackson could see a way to run her and win, he would obviously do it. A Belmont victory would stamp her as the greatest filly of all time in most fan's books. A place she may get to anyway. Hard Spun still amazes me. I still can't see how a horse could run those fractions for so friggin long.

Your Super filly while wonderful has never run a 110 beyer

ateamstupid · #9 05-29-2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Curlin's effort in the Haskel was his dullest effort all year. He rebounded with a sound effort in the jockey cup gold cup against Lawyer Ron. But his dull effort had to do with his difficulty rebounding from that triple crown series.

You really should stop stating opinions as fact. He ran against a bias that day, and even if you think it was lingering effects from the TC, THE HORSE WAS BETTER IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER THAN IN THE SPRING. How the hell does his mediocre Haskell negate this?

blackthroatedwind · #10 05-29-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handicappy

A Belmont victory would stamp her as the greatest filly of all time in most fan's books. A place she may get to anyway.

You have to be kidding me.

Handicappy · #11 05-30-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

Are most fans morons, or just not old enough to have seen Ruffian, for openers, race?

I'll go out on a limb and declare that no serious, educated racing fan older than 40 or 45 would consider her the greatest female of all-time were she to have won the Belmont Stakes this year.

I'm not saying that it would not have been a monumental achievement, but lets keep our historical perspective.

This whole thread has become a bit silly. We don't have an "OUR historical perspective". We have our own.

Clip-Clop · #12 06-01-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

Are most fans morons, or just not old enough to have seen Ruffian, for openers, race?

I'll go out on a limb and declare that no serious, educated racing fan older than 40 or 45 would consider her the greatest female of all-time were she to have won the Belmont Stakes this year.

I'm not saying that it would not have been a monumental achievement, but lets keep our historical perspective.

I am 34 and know that Azeri would bury RA. Not o mention the other fillies mentioned ie Ruffian.

King Glorious · #13 05-31-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

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.

hurricanefrank · #14 05-29-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

We're all so damn excited when the Preakness ratings are up, then when they duck the last remaining nationally important race with the sound horse who brought those ratings, we applaud. This is ridiculous.

How do you know she is sound?

ateamstupid · #15 05-29-2009, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurricanefrank

How do you know she is sound?

Because she's had two full campaigns so far and because there haven't been any reports whatsoever of soundness issues and because that's not the king of thing owners/trainers are shy about divulging?

booner · #16 05-29-2009, 06:12 PM

He paid $10 million for her. He can do whatever he wants. It's his filly.

I really would have liked to see her run in the Belmont. Now that she isn't, I'll just have to wait for her next start (if there is one).

hurricanefrank · #17 05-29-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Because she's had two full campaigns so far and because there haven't been any reports whatsoever of soundness issues and because that's not the king of thing owners/trainers are shy about divulging?

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Jackson took alot of heat for running her in the Preakness off two weeks rest. You know he'd be a bullseye for mucho criticism if he were to admit openly that she came out of the race with an issue. I hope it's just a matter of fatigue and that we'll see her down the road. In my opinion many Jackson haters are objectivity-challenged when it comes to Rachel Alexandra.

ateamstupid · #18 05-29-2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurricanefrank

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Jackson took alot of heat for running her in the Preakness off two weeks rest. You know he'd be a bullseye for mucho criticism if he were to admit openly that she came out of the race with an issue. I hope it's just a matter of fatigue and that we'll see her down the road. In my opinion many Jackson haters are objectivity-challenged when it comes to Rachel Alexandra.

I'm not a Jackson hater, if you'll read the other thread started by Ogygian, I strongly defended him. I just don't buy the long-term health explanation as quickly as others.

Dunbar · #19 05-29-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's just common sense in my opinion. She just ran a really hard race against the boys on only two weeks rest. To bring her back in 3 weeks and ask her to run 1 1/2 miles would simply be asking too much. I can't tell you for sure that she wouldn't win, but I think there is a high probability that it would totally knock her out and then she probably wouldn't be able to run for a few months. The risk/reward of running her in the Belmont simply is not there IMO.

Rupert, you know I'm usually a big advocate of running them on what today is called 'short rest'. But in this case I tend to agree with you. I think we're more likely to see her in interesting races down the road if she doesn't run in the Belmont.

I don't think Jackson will jump at the chance to retire her prematurely for some minor or phantom injury, either. That would seriously dent his stated goal of producing the next wave of sound thoroughbreds, by way of Curlin and Rachel.

--Dunbar