Rachel Alexandra (116 Beyer for Haskell)

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

The BC hasn't done anything to the racing calender. Your issue should be with the trainers out there that keep the top horses from meeting more often during the year so that the only time top horses all get together is in the BC and because there are so few opportunities to see them matched up, Eclipse voters place too much emphasis on the BC result. The BC was at the same time of the year back in the 80's and 90's when horses raced more and faced each other more. It's what the trainers and voters have done, not the BC.

Yes king, but it is what connections have done in response to the existence of the BC that has, in part, caused this to happen. Therefore if the BC didn't exist, their response wouldn't exist either.
I am not an anti-poly guy, but this idea that they simply must run their horse in some BC race is what bothers me. Why? Connections are supposed to pick out races that make sense for their horses....right? If they don't think running on poly makes sense for their animal....they shouldn't do it. If they like dirt and want to send a message that they want the BC on dirt....they should do that too.
As for the argument that it would be good for the sport to run her because tv ratings would be up, in a BC-less world wouldn't tv ratings also have been up if she ran in some races in the fall like the JCGC (which in a BC-less world wouldn't have become just a "prep" race).
Basically I am in favor of almost any move by any person that makes the Breeders' Cup even a little bit less important.

[miraja2]

As for the filly, I think Summer Bird, Munnings, and Papa Clem are all pretty decent horses, and the ease with which she dispatched them all yesterday was quite impressive.
She's the real deal.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yes king, but it is what connections have done in response to the existence of the BC that has, in part, caused this to happen. Therefore if the BC didn't exist, their response wouldn't exist either.

Trainers used to run their horses 3-5 times or more on a regular basis when prepping for the TC. Having your last prep more than four weeks out was unheard of. Look at how they do it now. More and more are using only two prep races and it's not even unusual to have a couple of horses coming in with layoffs of five weeks or longer. The training and racing philosophy has changed. Do you blame the Derby for the changes in the way horses are prepared for it? If not, why do you blame the BC for the way that horses are prepared for it? The BC existed when Cigar was running 10 times in 1995. It existed when Personal Ensign and Alysheba were running their ninth races of 1988. It existed when Easy Goer was running his 11th race of 1989. Hell, it was just two years ago when Curlin's BC was his ninth race of the year. If you want to blame anyone, blame the trainers, blame the Eclipse voters, blame the sheets guys (who tell these trainers that horses need more and more time between starts and have created this less is better approach). The BC is not at fault.