Jackson passes on Belmont with Rachel Alexandra

[tector]

If she stays healthy and is on form she will run against boys again, or Zenyatta, or both, so just chill.

And to "ateamstupid" who asked:

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

If Jess Jackson tells me it is in her best interest not to run, then a fortiori just about anyone else can say the same thing with a HIGH level of confidence.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by tector

If she stays healthy and is on form she will run against boys again, or Zenyatta, or both, so just chill.

And to "ateamstupid" who asked:



If Jess Jackson tells me it is in her best interest not to run, then a fortiori just about anyone else can say the same thing with a HIGH level of confidence.

Awesome, keep on accepting what trainers and owners say as gospel. The horse has absolutely no soundness issues and there aren't any big races on the horizon for months. She's got plenty of foundation and I don't understand why everyone's so quick to say "this is in the best interest of the horse" as if they're in her phucking barn. I think they don't believe she can go 12 furlongs and would've been passed by Mine That Bird if the Preakness were 1/16th longer. I'm not stating that as fact though, like some of the "doing right by the horse" experts.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Awesome, keep on accepting what trainers and owners say as gospel. The horse has absolutely no soundness issues and there aren't any big races on the horizon for months. She's got plenty of foundation and I don't understand why everyone's so quick to say "this is in the best interest of the horse" as if they're in her phucking barn. I think they don't believe she can go 12 furlongs and would've been passed by Mine That Bird if the Preakness were 1/16th longer. I'm not stating that as fact though, like some of the "doing right by the horse" experts.

Thanks for taking the "aptly named" out by the way braveheart

You are right. The distance is a question mark. And you are right that she was getting tired in the Preakness and might have gotten beat had the race been 1 1/4 miles. When you consider those things, why in the world would they want to bring the horse back in 3 weeks running 1 1/2 miles? How would that be in the horse's best interest?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are right. The distance is a question mark. And you are right that she was getting tired in the Preakness and might have gotten beat had the race been 1 1/4 miles. When you consider those things, why in the world would they want to bring the horse back in 3 weeks running 1 1/2 miles? How would that be in the horse's best interest?

Sorry, but I usually take "the horse's best interest" to be referring to health. I doubt Rachel cares if she loses at the Belmont, so if she's sound and they're just ducking, I don't want to hear this "long-term health" nonsense.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Sorry, but I usually take "the horse's best interest" to be referring to health. I doubt Rachel cares if she loses at the Belmont, so if she's sound and they're just ducking, I don't want to hear this "long-term health" nonsense.

As you said, there have been some great horses such as Curlin that ran well in all three legs of the Triple Crown and then were still able to run some more great races later in the year. But there aren't many horses that can do that. There have been far more horses that were either never the same or who needed a long rest to recover. And most trainers know this. That is why they didn't run Street Sense in the Belmont. They knew there was a high probability that it would knock him out, so they decided to skip the race.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As you said, there have been some great horses such as Curlin that ran well in all three legs of the Triple Crown and then were still able to run some more great races later in the year. But there aren't many horses that can do that. There have been far more horses that were either never the same or who needed a long rest to recover. And most trainers know this. That is why they didn't run Street Sense in the Belmont. They knew there was a high probability that it would knock him out, so they decided to skip the race.

Why would it have knocked out Street Sense if it didn't knock out Curlin and Hard Spun? Street Sense was trashed by those two later in the year, so who really was "knocked out"? Like I said, if you're ducking, say so. If the horse has no soudness issues, don't give me "long-term health" as your reason. It's hollow, and I'm surprised so many people not connected to the horse blindly nod along with it.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Why would it have knocked out Street Sense if it didn't knock out Curlin and Hard Spun? Street Sense was trashed by those two later in the year, so who really was "knocked out"? Like I said, if you're ducking, say so. If the horse has no soudness issues, don't give me "long-term health" as your reason. It's hollow, and I'm surprised so many people not connected to the horse blindly nod along with it.

Hard Spun would have buried Rachel

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Why would it have knocked out Street Sense if it didn't knock out Curlin and Hard Spun? Street Sense was trashed by those two later in the year, so who really was "knocked out"? Like I said, if you're ducking, say so. If the horse has no soudness issues, don't give me "long-term health" as your reason. It's hollow, and I'm surprised so many people not connected to the horse blindly nod along with it.

Street Sense was probably not as sound or as strong as Curlin. Horses like Curlin and Hard Spun are not the norm. They are the exception to the rule. I could go down the list and come up with tons of horses like Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex who were never the same after the Triple Crown. It is a rare individual who can do what Curlin and Hard Spun did.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As you said, there have been some great horses such as Curlin that ran well in all three legs of the Triple Crown and then were still able to run some more great races later in the year. But there aren't many horses that can do that.

That doughty fighter Bold Forbes really didn't stay 12f, but he had so much guts and class that he held on in the final quarter with everything he had and won the Belmont. Was not the same horse again thereafter. He'd won a lot of races at 2 and 3 before his Derby win; as best I recall, he didn't race but once or twice after the Belmont and the best he could do was second in the Vosburgh (which is pretty good, of course, but he couldn't keep on after that. And no, he wasn't retired because he could make more money as a stallion; he didn't have that fancy a pedigree and 30-40 foals/year was the usual in those days.)

[letswastemoney]

Mine That Bird will bring in some people.

Although now that I look back on it...maybe it would have been better for horse racing overall if RA never entered the Preakness if she wasn't going to go on to the Belmont. They basically stole the chance at seeing a horse run for Triple Crown glory, not that I'm saying MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont, but just the opportunity to watch a horse go for the Triple Crown would have generated so much interest that it's a shame RA's camp took that away from them and from horse racing, and now they are basically saying "We won, we don't need to face him again to prove ourselves."

[tector]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Mine That Bird will bring in some people.

Although now that I look back on it...maybe it would have been better for horse racing overall if RA never entered the Preakness if she wasn't going to go on to the Belmont. They basically stole the chance at seeing a horse run for Triple Crown glory, not that I'm saying MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont, but just the opportunity to watch a horse go for the Triple Crown would have generated so much interest that it's a shame RA's camp took that away from them and from horse racing, and now they are basically saying "We won, we don't need to face him again to prove ourselves."

Well, I am sure glad that you are NOT saying "MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont".

First of all, MTB almost certainly does NOT win the Preakness if RA is not in the race--in fact, he probably finishes substanitally worse. HE BEAT MUSKET MAN BY A HALF LENGTH WITH THE BEST PACE SCENARIO HE COULD HAVE REASONABLY EXPECTED. Yes, he had some traffic problems--that is what happens to dead closers. In fact, it happens MORE often to dead closers in fields without a solid pace since the field does not stretch out as much--which is very well may have happened without RA in the Preakness. In short his task would have been MUCH harder with RA out of that race.

I don't expect casual fans to understand that, but I thought posters here might get it. The idea that RA "cost" MTB a chance at the Triple Crown is laughable--in fact, she GAVE him a better chance.

I mean, is the first time some people have ever seen a closer like this? I had a 50-1 future bet on Concern in the BC Classic, but as nice a horse as he turned out to be, I cashed my frigging ticket just as much because of Bertrando as Concern--it is not rocket science at this level.

So, returning to the Belmont, hell yes MTB's connections wanted RA in the race--not because they wanted to "prove" something, but because THEY NEED SOME FRIGGING PACE. They'd prefer cheap garbage on the pace, sure, but they'd take quality pace over no pace any day.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by tector

Well, I am sure glad that you are NOT saying "MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont".

First of all, MTB almost certainly does NOT win the Preakness if RA is not in the race--in fact, he probably finishes substanitally worse. HE BEAT MUSKET MAN BY A HALF LENGTH WITH THE BEST PACE SCENARIO HE COULD HAVE REASONABLY EXPECTED. Yes, he had some traffic problems--that is what happens to dead closers. In fact, it happens MORE often to dead closers in fields without a solid pace since the field does not stretch out as much--which is very well may have happened without RA in the Preakness. In short his task would have been MUCH harder with RA out of that race.

I don't expect casual fans to understand that, but I thought posters here might get it. The idea that RA "cost" MTB a chance at the Triple Crown is laughable--in fact, she GAVE him a better chance.

I mean, is the first time some people have ever seen a closer like this? I had a 50-1 future bet on Concern in the BC Classic, but as nice a horse as he turned out to be, I cashed my frigging ticket just as much because of Bertrando as Concern--it is not rocket science at this level.

So, returning to the Belmont, hell yes MTB's connections wanted RA in the race--not because they wanted to "prove" something, but because THEY NEED SOME FRIGGING PACE. They'd prefer cheap garbage on the pace, sure, but they'd take quality pace over no pace any day.

I disagree. I think MTB would have most likely still won the Preakness if RA was not in the race. The pace would have been a little slower but I think MTB would have still won. Without RA in the race, Big Drama probably would have gotten the lead in about :47. I don't see any reason why MTB wouldn't have still won the race.

MTB is certainly at his best coming from well out of it in a race with a fast pace but that's not the only way he can win. In the Derby, the pace wasn't all that fast and he won by almost 7 lengths. I bet if he came from 10 length back that day instead of 18 lengths back, he still wins. He would have probably won by 3 lengths instead of 7 lengths. And as a 2 year old, he won 3 stakes races in a row and he was close to the pace in all of those races. Don't get me wrong, I think he's better when there is a fast pace and he comes from way out of it, but I don't think he's completely one-dimensional. His PPs clearly show that he is versatile.

All that being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see him throw in a clunker in the Belmont. Not so much because of the pace but because he just ran back to back hard races. He's not a very big horse. I would be surprised if he didn't regress quite a bit in the Belmont.

With regard to whether MTB would have had a better shot in the Belmont if RA was in there, I would say it would have depended whether RA fired or not. If she was knocked out from the Preakness and was going to simply show speed and quit, then I agree with you that she would have helped MTB's chances. But assuming that Borel was right that she didn't even handle the track at Pimlico and assuming that she would have run her best in the Belmont, then I think she would have hurt MTB's chances. It's really hard to know how RA would have run coming back in 3 weeks after a very hard race. She would probably have gotten a much better pace scenario in the Belmont than she got in the Preakness. She might have been able to get an easy lead in slow fractions in the Belmont.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by tector

Well, I am sure glad that you are NOT saying "MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont".

First of all, MTB almost certainly does NOT win the Preakness if RA is not in the race--in fact, he probably finishes substanitally worse. HE BEAT MUSKET MAN BY A HALF LENGTH WITH THE BEST PACE SCENARIO HE COULD HAVE REASONABLY EXPECTED. Yes, he had some traffic problems--that is what happens to dead closers. In fact, it happens MORE often to dead closers in fields without a solid pace since the field does not stretch out as much--which is very well may have happened without RA in the Preakness. In short his task would have been MUCH harder with RA out of that race.

I don't expect casual fans to understand that, but I thought posters here might get it. The idea that RA "cost" MTB a chance at the Triple Crown is laughable--in fact, she GAVE him a better chance.

Maybe those unsophisticated casual fans understand that Hull would have run in the Preakness had Rachel Alexandra not run... thereby providing as much or more pace pressure through the early and middle portion of the race, giving Mine That Bird every bit of a chance to close into fractions he needs to be successful.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Mine That Bird will bring in some people.

Although now that I look back on it...maybe it would have been better for horse racing overall if RA never entered the Preakness if she wasn't going to go on to the Belmont. They basically stole the chance at seeing a horse run for Triple Crown glory, not that I'm saying MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont, but just the opportunity to watch a horse go for the Triple Crown would have generated so much interest that it's a shame RA's camp took that away from them and from horse racing, and now they are basically saying "We won, we don't need to face him again to prove ourselves."

This is ridiculous.

On one thread we have posters cursing NOT running a talented mare and in this one we have posters cursing a filly for an excellent performance.

Rachel Alexandra = The Four Legged Bandit!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Mine That Bird will bring in some people.

Although now that I look back on it...maybe it would have been better for horse racing overall if RA never entered the Preakness if she wasn't going to go on to the Belmont. They basically stole the chance at seeing a horse run for Triple Crown glory, not that I'm saying MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont, but just the opportunity to watch a horse go for the Triple Crown would have generated so much interest that it's a shame RA's camp took that away from them and from horse racing, and now they are basically saying "We won, we don't need to face him again to prove ourselves."

i disagree with your thoughts here. mine that bird, like any potential champ, should be able to take on all comers and beat them. if anthing, it generated more than the normal amount of preakness buzz, which pimlico and md could certainly use.
and no, they don't need to face him again-she won.