Asmussen: No Rachel for Blossom

miraja2 · #1 03-14-2010, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem is that for some reason not losing trumps proving yourself against the best competition. With very few exceptions (Personal Ensign) the best horses of modern times lost. It really isnt that big of a deal.

Exactly right.
What is the big deal about her getting beat yesterday? It isn't like she ran horribly. I admit I don't know squat about training a horse, but I didn't see a thing from that race yesterday that made me think she shouldn't run at OP.

#2 03-14-2010, 03:58 PM

I, for one, am shocked.

Oaklawnfan · #3 03-14-2010, 03:58 PM

I should have sold my four seats on the finish line on Stub Hub when I had the chanch. From $600 each back down to face value.

#4 03-14-2010, 03:59 PM

I wonder how many people jumped the gun and bought scalped tickets?

the_fat_man · #5 03-14-2010, 04:02 PM

This one fizzled out quickly. This kind of **** happens when a 3rd stringer beats your 'champion'. At least the connections have a realistic gauge on things. Which is more than can be said for RA's many supporters.

If only Borel lets her go earlier.

Cannon Shell · #6 03-14-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miraja2

Exactly right.
What is the big deal about her getting beat yesterday? It isn't like she ran horribly. I admit I don't know squat about training a horse, but I didn't see a thing from that race yesterday that made me think she shouldn't run at OP.

The problem seems to be they have unrealistically overrated the filly. She is a very good horse with a couple of truly fantastic accomplishments. However she is not invincible, no horse is

zippyneedsawin · #7 03-14-2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem seems to be they have unrealistically overrated the filly. She is a very good horse with a couple of truly fantastic accomplishments. However she is not invincible, no horse is

what do you mean? Haven't you heard of Zenyatta?!?

Cannon Shell · #8 03-14-2010, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

what do you mean? Haven't you heard of Zenyatta?!?

Zenyatta has beat up on cupcakes in 90% of her starts. She is far from a lock taking on males (even the crappy ones that masquerade as grade 1 horses these days) on dirt.

freddymo · #9 03-14-2010, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Zenyatta has beat up on cupcakes in 90% of her starts. She is far from a lock taking on males (even the crappy ones that masquerade as grade 1 horses these days) on dirt.

3 day old cupcakes

randallscott35 · #10 03-14-2010, 04:14 PM

I expect Zenyatta to lose that race anyway.

Duvalier · #11 03-14-2010, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I expect Zenyatta to lose that race anyway.

You're bound to get one right one of these days.

pointman · #12 03-14-2010, 04:14 PM

If Rachel doesn't show in the AB, you have to wonder if the Moss' are thrilled about Sheriff's decision to send Zardana against RA yesterday, even second place in the AB would have been worth a lot more than a win is worth now. It is not everyday you get to run for $5 million!

Cannon Shell · #13 03-14-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

If Rachel doesn't show in the AB, you have to wonder if the Moss' are thrilled about Sheriff's decision to send Zardana against RA yesterday, even second place in the AB would have been worth a lot more than a win is worth now. It is not everyday you get to run for $5 million!

They could supplement to the Dubai WC!

zippyneedsawin · #14 03-14-2010, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

If Rachel doesn't show in the AB, you have to wonder if the Moss' are thrilled about Sheriff's decision to send Zardana against RA yesterday, even second place in the AB would have been worth a lot more than a win is worth now. It is not everyday you get to run for $5 million!

Do they even bother sending Z to Oak now? There's got to be a Grade 1, five horse field of fillies and mares to challenge her in California around the same time.

CSC · #15 03-14-2010, 04:28 PM

"If I knew she wasn't going to win I wouldn't have run her". Asmussen

What did I tell this forum...

You can apply that to last year also with running in the Woodward against mediocre Bullsbay and Macho Again rather than trying real horses in the Travers. Then she skips the BC and now when she loses a 'Prep' which is designed to get the horse ready for a match up with Zenyatta, they once again duck, avoid the race. It's embaressing that they moved the race 1 week back to accomodate her.

As I told some of you last year to all that bought into this marvellous campaign that she somehow faced the best in raciing. There was an element of smoke and mirrors to her HOY season. With racing there is always risk to losing, however with these connections the chance of winning does not equal the fear of losing. Let the excuses come via the fanclub.

If this wasn't dissapointing this would be actually funny.

dalakhani · #16 03-14-2010, 04:19 PM

I think its great they didn't wait around to make this announcement. Good for them! They took a shot in the prep to see how she looked and it wasn't to their liking. That being the case- why run?

Hopefully, Rachel will be back sometime later in the spring or summer and we can see this go down.

Wouldn't you be pissed if they waited around for another week or two before making the announcement?

miraja2 · #17 03-14-2010, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think its great they didn't wait around to make this announcement. Good for them! They took a shot in the prep to see how she looked and it wasn't to their liking. That being the case- why run?

Hopefully, Rachel will be back sometime later in the spring or summer and we can see this go down.

Wouldn't you be pissed if they waited around for another week or two before making the announcement?

What if she goes out and turns in absolutely stellar workout next week. She looks great, runs a fast time, etc.
That leaves two options:
1) They continue to say she isn't going....which would make virtually no sense.
2) They change their mind and say she is going to run....in which case....why announce right now one way or the other?

Cannon Shell · #18 03-14-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think its great they didn't wait around to make this announcement. Good for them! They took a shot in the prep to see how she looked and it wasn't to their liking. That being the case- why run?

Hopefully, Rachel will be back sometime later in the spring or summer and we can see this go down.

Wouldn't you be pissed if they waited around for another week or two before making the announcement?

While I understand where you are coming from and fully expected Jackson to drag it out before backing out but the reasoning behind not running is unusual to say the least.

Sightseek · #19 03-14-2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think its great they didn't wait around to make this announcement. Good for them! They took a shot in the prep to see how she looked and it wasn't to their liking. That being the case- why run?

Hopefully, Rachel will be back sometime later in the spring or summer and we can see this go down.

Wouldn't you be pissed if they waited around for another week or two before making the announcement?

Me too.

AeWingnut · #20 03-14-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pointman

If Rachel doesn't show in the AB, you have to wonder if the Moss' are thrilled about Sheriff's decision to send Zardana against RA yesterday, even second place in the AB would have been worth a lot more than a win is worth now. It is not everyday you get to run for $5 million!

excellent point man. Sheriff's cost them big time. Rachel wins there is no excuse, they go to the Apple Blossum and get part of $5 mil. Now it's hardly a race of note.