Rachel to Monmouth on July 24...

[RolloTomasi]

“It’s the perfect place to start what we hope will be another championship run.”
This BS is a laugher. What's she been doing the rest of the year. Wasn't the Fleur De Lis enough of a "launchpad"?

They run 2 Grade 1s in the month of August at Saratoga, the first of which is the 9f Ruffian. That race is August 1st.

Over at Delaware, on July 17th, they run the historic 10f Delaware Handicap.

But Rachel Alexandra needs to run on July 24th. So they need some track to augment a race scheduled for a different weekend, carded for a different distance, and carrying a different purse.

The sad thing is, the main horses in the Eastern distaff division appear to be Life At Ten, Funny Moon, and Unrivaled Belle. I assume anywhere from 1 to all 3 could show up in the Delaware Handicap, which essentially eliminates them from starting in the Ruffian. Seems like the latter is a more than appropriate spot to run in, especially considering she'll be training there.

Furthermore, whatever takes place in her next start, what is the likelihood she shows up for the Personal Ensign at 10f? I don't think it's very good, especially if this steroid enhanced Lady's Secret doesn't affect the Grade 2 $300,000 Molly Pitcher run in late August at Monmouth at 9f.

You know what's going to be an even bigger debate than last year's battle between Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra for HOY?

This year's battle between Jess Jackson and Jerry Moss for the Big Sport Of Wussdom Award.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

This year's battle between Jess Jackson and Jerry Moss for the Big Sport Of Wussdom Award.

I steadfastly have believed for months now that neither one will run in the BC Classic ... which is understandable - but the way they've been managed this year is a total joke.

There is no shame at all in losing - no shame at all. These horses are being managed is such a pathetic fashion - solely to reduce chance of defeat - that it's beyond lame.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I steadfastly have believed for months now that neither one will run in the BC Classic ... which is understandable - but the way they've been managed this year is a total joke.

There is no shame at all in losing - no shame at all. These horses are being managed is such a pathetic fashion - solely to reduce chance of defeat - that it's beyond lame.

At this point I'd rather watch Azeri v. Sightseek, Riboletta v. Beautiful Pleasure, or Sky Beauty vs. any number of Phipps fillies replays on a grainy Youtube upload than watch these two tarnished champions square off in a live race.

I hope One Dreamer comes out of retirement and beats them both in the Ladies Classic.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Have officially read it all now.

Something tells me you've skipped a few chapters here and there.

Either of these two horses would blow Sky Beauty off the track on three legs.

Maybe...but only if you could get either of the two to take on a horse like Sky Beauty in the first place.

Tarnished? What on earth is tarnished?

I thought you read everything?

"Tarnish" means to lose luster or become dull.

A synonym would be TAINT. Try Webster's if you can't find it. Either that, or use a mirror and hold it between your legs.

May be time to quote Don King here.

You can quote Don King all you want, but I think you just got beat down like Rodney.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by HomerS

All the crying about racing needs stars, well you have two right in front of your eyes.

They're not being campaigned like stars. That's the problem. They're stars this year because you say they are. Why don't you understand that yes, we appreciate seeing these horses in 2010, but no, we don't appreciate running them in the same cupcake races over and over? Seeing supposed stars go untested 364 days of the year isn't a whole lot better than seeing them on the farm, especially when compared to the campaigns of the distant and not-so-distant past.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by HomerS

What races should they be running in at this time of the year?

Are you saying they should be racing exclusively against males?

Nope. That's a straw man argument, and you should really stop using it. They've each had three races this year against inferior competition. They should be running in tougher races than the Clement Hirsch and a made-up ungraded Monmouth stake by now. No one said anything about a campaign exclusively against males, so stop being disingenuous and misrepresenting my argument. They've had enough warm-ups. True stars wouldn't still be facing cupcakes in August.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Im asking what races should they be running in. Against who? Will assume you will give them both a pass on their first race of the year so which races should they have run in the last two?

As far as Rachel Alexandra is concerned, what was wrong with either the Delaware Handicap or the Ruffian?

Aren't Life At Ten, Unrivaled Belle, and even Funny Moon more accomplished than Rachel Alexandra this year?

Did we really need a third race between July 17 and August 1 made up on the spot to further dilute the Eastern-based distaff pool?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by HomerS

It was a legitimate question. Dont see how its a straw man argument. Trying to get to heart of the matter. Are you saying is a question. You are saying is not.

Im asking what races should they be running in. Against who? Will assume you will give them both a pass on their first race of the year so which races should they have run in the last two?

Why are you going back in time? They're still running against cupcakes and it's their respective fourth races of the year. It was a straw man argument, because I said absolutely nothing to suggest they should be running exclusively against males. All I said is they've been on deck long enough this year, step into the box already.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by HomerS

What races should they be running in at this time of the year?

Are you saying they should be racing exclusively against males?

Was that a criteria for all fillies and mares of the past?

Has it occurred to you that connections of both know their horses and dont think they can withstand a campaign exclusively against males.

Did Personal Ensign have rigerous campaigns? Was Winning Colors run into the ground?

Dont mean to bombard with questions just think its a much more complex issue then is being made out to be. Holding these horses or their connections responsible for the trend in racing to less races is not really fair. Especially when you look at how often Rachel in particular ran last year.

Forget what I say. If they never run another race they go into the Hall of Fame. They are stars

This is laughable. This isnt complex, the connections make it complex. The industry isnt keeping these guys from running in top races and ducing each other (well i guess Monmouth would be complicit now). The idea that the sorry group of males is something to be feared is also laughable. It isn't as though we are asking them to run against Forgeo or Seattle Slew or Sunday Silence or Skip Away or just about anybody any good. Hell they cant even race against each other in filly races. What is your excuse for that?

Lady's Secret may have eventually been run into the ground but during the process of doing so she accomplished a hell of a lot against much rougher competition that these two cream puffs. And I keep wondering why Personal Ensign is being brought back into the conversation. There is a horse that absolutely didn't have to be brought back due to the fact she had her leg pinned back together. And because of that she had to have briefer campaigns than normal in her day. But of course we understood that back then because you know she had a bag full of screws in her leg. That would seem to be a touch more valid excuse than what we are being fed now.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Wow.

First of all I know what tarnished means. My objection was the foolishness in the way it was used. Thought that was clear.

Never heard it used in such a foolish manner.

It cracks me up. For years players been crying (and in many cases rightfully) about horses retiring prematurely. Here you have a situation where connections of both have NOTHING to gain by running their horses this year. Yet they both do so and have done nothing but get abuse. The second Zenyetta loses (should it happen) all the idiots will crow "see she isn't any good". We have already seen what losing has done to Rachel. People saying she is tarnished and others even trying to say she doesn't deserve LAST year;s HOY award.

There is just no perspective anymore. Bunch of old men sitting around on a porch drinking lemonade pissing and moaning about the good old days.
There are definitely many problems with racing today but these two great mares are nothing but positive. All the crying about racing needs stars, well you have two right in front of your eyes.

Let me ask you a question. What exactly did these owners have to lose when choosing to keep these fillies in training?

The idea that we should all be enthralled by watching these horses beat over matched competition in pretty meaningless races is ludicrous. Perhaps I am just not a "modern" enough fan but when perusing you tube watching races looking for great stretch runs it becomes painfully obvious how lame the sport has become and your chastising us is just further proof that the sports standards are now REALLY low.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

There is no shame at all in losing - no shame at all. These horses are being managed is such a pathetic fashion - solely to reduce chance of defeat - that it's beyond lame.

I think you're a bit confused. RA has already lost and lost pretty badly this year. Jackson pretty much had no choice but to duck Z in the AB and might just be aware that his horse of the year caught a speed favoring track last out. You must be just about the only one out who needs to emphasize the belief that RA is not going in the Classic.

As for Z, as long as she shows up for the Classic, her connections have nothing to answer for. Let's face it, the intent is to go after the Horse of the Year award. How exactly does she get this by beating Rail Trip? Exactly.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

As for Z, as long as she shows up for the Classic, her connections have nothing to answer for.

She will not show up in the BC Classic - nor should she based her on dirt form.

The meeting between the two will eventually take place in the Distaff at least. An entire racing season for the two of highest profile horses pretty much wasted by the both of them.

At least Life Is Sweet got to face Rail Trip.

At least Curlin wasn't given an SEC non-confrence type schedule after he lost his turf race as a 4yo.

[smuthg]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

She will not show up in the BC Classic - nor should she based her on dirt form.

The meeting between the two will eventually take place in the Distaff at least. An entire racing season for the two of highest profile horses pretty much wasted by the both of them.

At least Life Is Sweet got to face Rail Trip.

At least Curlin wasn't given an SEC non-confrence type schedule after he lost his turf race as a 4yo.

I have to disagree... I don't see anything short of injury that keeps Zenyatta out of the starting gate in the Breeders' Cup Classic. And Curlin's 2008 campaign was more like Vandy and Miss St. at home following his turf loss.

[Patrick333]

Another ungraded stake for RA. I'm really surprised. Imagine the outcry if Zenyatta was racing in an ungraded race.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

Another ungraded stake for RA. I'm really surprised. Imagine the outcry if Zenyatta was racing in an ungraded race.

Rachel has run in two ungraded stakes during the last sixteen months, which did include five consecutive Grade Is in 2009. You kind of make it sound like she's repeatedly running in ungraded races.

Neither of these two deserve any notoriety in terms of seeking out strong competition in 2010.

NT

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I think you're a bit confused. RA has already lost and lost pretty badly this year. Jackson pretty much had no choice but to duck Z in the AB and might just be aware that his horse of the year caught a speed favoring track last out. You must be just about the only one out who needs to emphasize the belief that RA is not going in the Classic.

As for Z, as long as she shows up for the Classic, her connections have nothing to answer for. Let's face it, the intent is to go after the Horse of the Year award. How exactly does she get this by beating Rail Trip? Exactly.

RA lost pretty badly this year?

Did I miss a start where she ran up the track?

Or are you Smooth Operators meat puppet?

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

RA lost pretty badly this year?

Did I miss a start where she ran up the track?

Or are you Smooth Operators meat puppet?

IC does she have to run up the track to get beat badly? She lost to 2 horse who both came back to get beat.... Enough said... Its not like the races she lost in came back KEY or anything, I would call them both pretty bad losses all things considered.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I think you're a bit confused. RA has already lost and lost pretty badly this year.

I got a problem with the implied definition of "lose badly." You might point to those that beat her, but her times and Beyers for the races were very much in line with those she'd had before. She ran respectable efforts. Sorry she wasn't 20 lengths ahead like last year. I guess in comparison it was a bit of a downer for you.

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

As for Z, as long as she shows up for the Classic, her connections have nothing to answer for. Let's face it, the intent is to go after the Horse of the Year award. How exactly does she get this by beating Rail Trip? Exactly.

That's hilarious. First off, the horse is the one that has to answer for things and it's all year, not just in one race. It's not the facing Rail Trip folks take issue with. It's that she's DUCKING Rail Trip (and doesn't need to be). What does THAT say? If it's so darn easy to beat him, go for it. They're avoiding it cuz it's riskier. End of. I wish that precious streak had never happened. One loss somewhere might've prevented this. She's got what it takes. What's the bloody problem?

[Thunder Gulch]

No excuse for either avoiding competition. Better to go down swinging than keep up this charade.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

I



That's hilarious. First off, the horse is the one that has to answer for things and it's all year, not just in one race. It's not the facing Rail Trip folks take issue with. It's that she's DUCKING Rail Trip (and doesn't need to be). What does THAT say? If it's so darn easy to beat him, go for it. They're avoiding it cuz it's riskier. End of. I wish that precious streak had never happened. One loss somewhere might've prevented this. She's got what it takes. What's the bloody problem?

Here's what you and the other Z connection bashers seem to conveniently overlook. The intent behind bringing Z back was to go for the Horse of the Year, which they thought she deserved last year. The way to get it was:

1) beat the reigning Horse of the Year of the Apple Blossom

and/or

2) win this year's Classic (giving her 2 in a row)


1) didn't pan out when RA didn't show for the AB

2) has noting to do with whether she beats Rail Trip or not BECAUSE, clearly, if she beats RT and loses (or doesn't participate in) the Classic, she's almost certainly not getting HOTY. Let's make this a bit clearer: say Quality Road goes into the Classic undefeated for the year. If she beats him, she gets HOTY. If she loses and he wins, she doesn't. Once again, Rail Trip is not in the equation. Get it?

So, why run her under those conditions for the purpose of anything other than keeping her fit? Why ship her, as some have been demanding? Too bad RA couldn't keep her end of the bargain and 2 is now the ONLY option for the Z camp.