Asmussen: No Rachel for Blossom

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

chuck she just started working on jan 27 , zenyatta hasn't missed a beat since oct

ra has been out since when sept

so from sept tp jan she did nothing - correct

1st work on jan 27 , zenyatta didn't miss a beat

they both ran yesterday and the AB is when 3 weeks - how could she possible be ready to face Z that amount of time? how could she be ready for a peak effort ?

So Assmussen rushed the horse to get ready for last Sat's race when he knew she couldnt be ready on April 9th anyway?

This is bs logic especially when you know that she isnt running so there is no chance that you can be proven wrong.

Horses used to prep in sprint races all the time before stretching out. I guess none of them were ready either.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So Assmussen rushed the horse to get ready for last Sat's race when he knew she couldnt be ready on April 9th anyway?

This is bs logic especially when you know that she isnt running so there is no chance that you can be proven wrong.

Horses used to prep in sprint races all the time before stretching out. I guess none of them were ready either.

let's say you were the trainer chuck and mr jackson came to you and wanted you to make the April 9th race against Z. would you be able to get her ready to face Z in that amount of time ?

the facts are RA off since sept , works start jan 27 , Zenyatta retired but not missing a beat in training for some odd reason since the BC - is there any possible way that RA could be at 100 % for this race on april 9th , we all know Z is and will be at 100% , but could rachel be there? is it really fair for RA to face Z on april 9th given the fact that 1 horse has not missed a beat since oct and the other one had a 5 mth layoff and will have about 2 1/2 months of acclerated training? if the shoe was on the other foot would sheirffs really run Z against RA?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by gales0678

let's say you were the trainer chuck and mr jackson came to you and wanted you to make the April 9th race against Z. would you be able to get her ready to face Z in that amount of time ?

the facts are RA off since sept , works start jan 27 , Zenyatta retired but not missing a beat in training for some odd reason since the BC - is there any possible way that RA could be at 100 % for this race on april 9th , we all know Z is and will be at 100% , but could rachel be there? is it really fair for RA to face Z on april 9th given the fact that 1 horse has not missed a beat since oct and the other one had a 5 mth layoff and will have about 2 1/2 months of acclerated training? if the shoe was on the other foot would sheirffs really run Z against RA?

Rachel actually didn't start working until January 31.

NT

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

let's say you were the trainer chuck and mr jackson came to you and wanted you to make the April 9th race against Z. would you be able to get her ready to face Z in that amount of time ?

the facts are RA off since sept , works start jan 27 , Zenyatta retired but not missing a beat in training for some odd reason since the BC - is there any possible way that RA could be at 100 % for this race on april 9th , we all know Z is and will be at 100% , but could rachel be there? is it really fair for RA to face Z on april 9th given the fact that 1 horse has not missed a beat since oct and the other one had a 5 mth layoff and will have about 2 1/2 months of acclerated training? if the shoe was on the other foot would sheirffs really run Z against RA?

Your logic makes sense if you are talking about the 1st race back off of a layoff, not the second. What Zenyatta has done or is doing doesnt have any bearing on RA's fitness level.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your logic makes sense if you are talking about the 1st race back off of a layoff, not the second. What Zenyatta has done or is doing doesnt have any bearing on RA's fitness level.

ok simpler question - if the roles were reversed do you think sheriffs would run against RA in the AB ?- say Z took off from sept to late jan and ra didn't miss a beat since oct , do you think sheriffs and moss would agree to that ?

[smuthg]

Originally Posted by gales0678

ok simpler question - if the roles were reversed do you think sheriffs would run against RA in the AB ?- say Z took off from sept to late jan and ra didn't miss a beat since oct , do you think sheriffs and moss would agree to that ?

the proof is out there from last year... Zenyatta didn't race until June; they took their time with her off a hard campaign.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by smuthg

the proof is out there from last year... Zenyatta didn't race until June; they took their time with her off a hard campaign.

horses are a lot like humans , if you try to make them do things they are not comfertable doing then how do you think they will respond , these horses are not machines you just can't turn the key on and hit the gas pedal

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by gales0678

let's say you were the trainer chuck and mr jackson came to you and wanted you to make the April 9th race against Z. would you be able to get her ready to face Z in that amount of time ?

the facts are RA off since sept , works start jan 27 , Zenyatta retired but not missing a beat in training for some odd reason since the BC - is there any possible way that RA could be at 100 % for this race on april 9th , we all know Z is and will be at 100% , but could rachel be there? is it really fair for RA to face Z on april 9th given the fact that 1 horse has not missed a beat since oct and the other one had a 5 mth layoff and will have about 2 1/2 months of acclerated training? if the shoe was on the other foot would sheirffs really run Z against RA?

I still don't understand what I'm missing here.
Did RA run 130 BSFs all last year and all of the sudden run a 75 last Saturday? I don't think so. Did she run back to her top numbers in her first back? No, but she ran well enough and fast enough that it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that she might be close to where she was last year in her next start.
People (including the connections apparently) make it sound as if she went from being Citation last year to being a $5K claimer in her first race this year. Neither is the case.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I still don't understand what I'm missing here.
Did RA run 130 BSFs all last year and all of the sudden run a 75 last Saturday? I don't think so. Did she run back to her top numbers in her first back? No, but she ran well enough and fast enough that it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that she might be close to where she was last year in her next start.
People (including the connections apparently) make it sound as if she went from being Citation last year to being a $5K claimer in her her first race this year. Neither is the case.

again here are the facts:

1 horse off from sept to late jan , 1 horse working regurlaly even though she was supposed to be retired since oct

they both race sat and will go again in 3 weeks - who has the fitness edge ?? are we to believe that Z has no fitness edge?

are we to believe that if the roles were reversed moss and sheriffs would acclerate Z's training from late jan to get her ready to run against a horse that hasn't missed a beat since oct in the AB?

[PeteMugg]

Originally Posted by gales0678

again here are the facts:

1 horse off from sept to late jan , 1 horse working regurlaly even though she was supposed to be retired since oct

they both race sat and will go again in 3 weeks - who has the fitness edge ?? are we to believe that Z has no fitness edge?

are we to believe that if the roles were reversed moss and sheriffs would acclerate Z's training from late jan to get her ready to run against a horse that hasn't missed a beat since oct in the AB?

Would we be questioning RA's fitness if Zardana wasn't in that race? She would have posted a nice Beyer in a win by open lengths. A lot of folks would be handing her the AB victory already.

On the flip side, Zenyatta's number was much lower on that crap surface in her home state. And she only beat a bunch of mules. This is true, I read it on a forum somewhere. Sounds like Zenyatta is the one who should be backing down.

Guess she doesn't read Derby Trail.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by gales0678

again here are the facts:

1 horse off from sept to late jan , 1 horse working regurlaly even though she was supposed to be retired since oct

they both race sat and will go again in 3 weeks - who has the fitness edge ?? are we to believe that Z has no fitness edge?

are we to believe that if the roles were reversed moss and sheriffs would acclerate Z's training from late jan to get her ready to run against a horse that hasn't missed a beat since oct in the AB?

So are you saying that Ass/Jackson never should have agreed to run in the OP race in the first place because there is simply no way they had enough time to get her ready for it?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So are you saying that Ass/Jackson never should have agreed to run in the OP race in the first place because there is simply no way they had enough time to get her ready for it?

yes -( Assmussen had no inital say in my opinion , you can put up all the quotes about what he said , they are all just sound bites to the media, in my opinion it was the owners decision )

would you care now to answer my questions since i answered yours ?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by gales0678

yes -( Assmussen had no inital say in my opinion , you can put up all the quotes about what he said , they are all just sound bites to the media, in my opinion it was the owners decision )

would you care now to answer my questions since i answered yours ?

What questions? The ones about what Moss would do in an alternate universe where the situation was reversed?
I have no earthly idea.

All I do know is that both horses ran pretty well on Saturday, although both ran considerably slower than they did at the end of their respective campaigns last year. Personally, I know of no reason why both couldn't run better in a race four weeks down the road.
What did Rachel run on saturday in terms of BSFs? A 100? Is it really imposible to think that she could run considerably better four weeks later, and that that might be good enough to win the race? I don't think so. I realize BSFs certainly aren't the only way to judge the quality of a performance, but it would seem possible - and perhaps even probable - for her to run a 105+ in four weeks. That could very easily be good enough to win.