One of the greatest 11.25 length defeats by a filly in history

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I don't think I saw an impressive race this weekend at the Spa, Rachel's race included.

Uncle Mo and Rapport?

[Seattleallstar]

Geez this would be an issue if Macho Again caught Rachel in the Woodward. Clearly 9 was the limit, and 10 was pushing it.

[CSC]

Life at 10 has never gone off higher than 4-1 in her lifetime on dirt, how is she going to be an overlay in her next start? Unless she goes back to turf, but going off of her lone turf try that would be foolish. Furthermore doesn't she regress off of her duel with Rach? Doesn't seem like a great bet to me next out.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by CSC

Life at 10 has never gone off higher than 4-1 in her lifetime on dirt, how is she going to be an overlay in her next start? Unless she goes back to turf, but going off of her lone turf try that would be foolish. Furthermore doesn't she regress off of her duel with Rach? Doesn't seem like a great bet to me next out.

That's exactly the kind of reasoning that DrugS is saying is going to happen next time she runs.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That's exactly the kind of reasoning that DrugS is saying is going to happen next time she runs.

I know his reasoning, I agree at times a bad last race on paper is a great betting angle, but when a horse has never been higher than 4-1 on dirt in her life, what odds are good odds? Say what you want about Rachel Alexandra, horses that have hooked her have not fared well in their next races. Ie. Unrivaled Belle, Zardana...ect.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by CSC

I know his reasoning, I agree at times a bad last race on paper is a great betting angle, but when a horse has never been higher than 4-1 on dirt in her life, what odds are good odds? Say what you want about Rachel Alexandra, horses that have hooked her have not fared well in their next races. Ie. Unrivaled Belle, Zardana...ect.

True enough.

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

True enough.

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

One thing I do respect about Rachel and I say this in all sincerity, she runs hard and takes no prisoner's in her races. She is a career killer, and who knows what lies ahead for Life At 10. She won a race at 1 1/4 at Delaware on an easy slow lead. That enough should be enough to question if she is a true 1 1/4 horse. I do like her at Belmont BUT if she does run in the Beldame at 4-1 or less, I would steer clear of her. I can't see her as anything higher than 2nd or 3rd choice for that race.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

It's an odd thing that in the three races RA has lost this year, it's been something like double digits lengths back to the third horse.

That doesn't strike me as odd for distance races with five-horse fields of very questionable quality.