Rachel Alexandra - what would her odds be in the BC Distaff?

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I completely disagree. I think she has nothing to lose. I think pretty much everyone concedes she never reached last year's level, so losing again would be further confirmation. If she popped and won, however, it would be quite an achievement.

The decision is being overshadowed by Zenyatta, whom Jess let get in his head a long time ago with this ridiculous schedule. IMO, RA would still have a much better chance at the Distaff than Z has at the Classic.

If she wins the Distaff, what race do you harken back to as the fondest memory of her career? The Kentucky Oaks, The Preakness, The Haskell, The Woodward or the Distaff?

My thoughts are they rank:

Woodward
Kentucky Oaks
Preakness
Distaff
Haskell

No matter what she does in the race, her legend has peaked. I don't think she would, but should she get beat, again, it takes just that much more luster off of what she has already accomplished. It's just my opinion, and I am a fan. She gave us a lot of thrills last year, and anyone that was at the Woodward knows they got down to the very bottom that day. I would have bet a lot of money that they would have retired her as HOY.

[Thunder Gulch]

I don't think a loss takes anything away. She was the best 3yo filly I ever saw, so why does losing again change that?

As much as I want to say beating the boys in the Haskell and Woodward were her best, the overwhelming sight of her drawing off by 20 in the Oaks in front of 100,000 people will be the one I never forget. To win that race- at that place- in that manner...

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I don't think a loss takes anything away. She was the best 3yo filly I ever saw, so why does losing again change that?

As much as I want to say beating the boys in the Haskell and Woodward were her best, the overwhelming sight of her drawing off by 20 in the Oaks in front of 100,000 people will be the one I never forget. To win that race- at that place- in that manner...

IMO, it's very close. I guess because I was there for the Woodward, standing just past the finish line at ground level, it is a moment I will never forget.

[slotdirt]

I was there for both the Preakness and the Oaks last year - two entirely different kinds of wins - and I'd say the Oaks will always be her career-defining performance.

[NTamm1215]

I understand what's been said here but it also illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in the game.

This idea that if a horse loses they're suddenly no good and their accomplishments are tarnished is lunacy. Racing became the game that was easy to fall in love with because people challenged their horses, it was a sport. It didn't matter if you lost. Everyone and their brother knew that Secretariat was not 100% leading up to the Whitney, including Ron Turcotte but there was no way he wasn't going to run. He ran and he lost, but he still had opportunities to restore any lost luster and we don't remember him as the horse that lost the Whitney.

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I understand what's been said here but it also illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in the game.

This idea that if a horse loses they're suddenly no good and their accomplishments are tarnished is lunacy. Racing became the game that was easy to fall in love with because people challenged their horses, it was a sport. It didn't matter if you lost. Everyone and their brother knew that Secretariat was not 100% leading up to the Whitney, including Ron Turcotte but there was no way he wasn't going to run. He ran and he lost, but he still had opportunities to restore any lost luster and we don't remember him as the horse that lost the Whitney.

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

They would come back in some Allowance race or perhaps a G3, where winning was desired but not required to prep for the G1 races. Different game nowadays.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

I completely agree on the different point but to me the game is less interesting than it has ever been. No rivalries are ever created because in the rare occurance that two top horses meet, the loser almost invariably slinks off to grade 3 land and the winner's connections expect to be coronated. About the closest thing we have to a rivalry is Havre de Grace and Blind Luck.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I completely agree on the different point but to me the game is less interesting than it has ever been. No rivalries are ever created because in the rare occurance that two top horses meet, the loser almost invariably slinks off to grade 3 land and the winner's connections expect to be coronated. About the closest thing we have to a rivalry is Havre de Grace and Blind Luck.

I agree Chuck and I didn't mean interesting in a good way.

[Arletta]

And away she goes....

http://www.drf.com/news/photos-rache...her-new-career

[slotdirt]

Headed to Churchill Downs, eh?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I completely agree on the different point but to me the game is less interesting than it has ever been. No rivalries are ever created because in the rare occurance that two top horses meet, the loser almost invariably slinks off to grade 3 land and the winner's connections expect to be coronated. About the closest thing we have to a rivalry is Havre de Grace and Blind Luck.

Turning into a fun one too! I just think that BL is best at longer races than the Cotillion. She nails HDG with a little more distance.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

Actually, Blame's campaign is not a great example of the problem. Since he returned in a May prep race, he's basically run in all the "championship" races in his division, with the exception of the Woodward. (Even Quality Road ran in races like the Donn, Met Mile, Whitney and Woodward. He just hasn't run enough.) The problem is that the division is weak, not the races in which they have been competing. To me, the poster child for the ridiculousness of the "modern" campaigns is Boys at Tosconova.

About 5 or 6 years ago, we started to see the time between major races stretched out to satisfy the trainers like Pletcher, Frankel and Dutrow that wanted more time between engagements. Great historic races like the Futurity have become "Grade II" in status (or are on the verge of extinction) because today's "top trainers" are apparently incapable of running their horses every 4-5 weeks, let alone the 2-4 weeks that used to be standard. The irony is that, even with the amount of time between the Whitney, Woodward and JCGC lengthened, for example, Pletcher passed on the JCGC with Quality Road. One other implication being that, in the Breeders Cup era, races that used to determine championships such as the JCGC, Champagne and Vosburgh are now viewed by the top trainers as "nothing" races.

Racing's leaders need to seriously rethink the racing calendar and, through the Graded Stakes Committee, reduce significantly the number of Grade I races, thereby creating a limited number of "championship" events without a lot of interference. That's why the Whitney and Alabama have repeatedly produced championship-caliber matchups, while the Travers rarely gets such matchups. Of course, the owners and breeders that sit on that committee and benefit from the over-abundance of graded races are unlikely to do this, as they benefit (from enhanced catalog pages) from the system being the way it is.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Actually, Blame's campaign is not a great example of the problem. Since he returned in a May prep race, he's basically run in all the "championship" races in his division, with the exception of the Woodward. (Even Quality Road ran in races like the Donn, Met Mile, Whitney and Woodward. He just hasn't run enough.) The problem is that the division is weak, not the races in which they have been competing. To me, the poster child for the ridiculousness of the "modern" campaigns is Boys at Tosconova.

About 5 or 6 years ago, we started to see the time between major races stretched out to satisfy the trainers like Pletcher, Frankel and Dutrow that wanted more time between engagements. Great historic races like the Futurity have become "Grade II" in status (or are on the verge of extinction) because today's "top trainers" are apparently incapable of running their horses every 4-5 weeks, let alone the 2-4 weeks that used to be standard. The irony is that, even with the amount of time between the Whitney, Woodward and JCGC lengthened, for example, Pletcher passed on the JCGC with Quality Road. One other implication being that, in the Breeders Cup era, races that used to determine championships such as the JCGC, Champagne and Vosburgh are now viewed by the top trainers as "nothing" races.

Racing's leaders need to seriously rethink the racing calendar and, through the Graded Stakes Committee, reduce significantly the number of Grade I races, thereby creating a limited number of "championship" events without a lot of interference. That's why the Whitney and Alabama have repeatedly produced championship-caliber matchups, while the Travers rarely gets such matchups. Of course, the owners and breeders that sit on that committee and benefit from the over-abundance of graded races are unlikely to do this, as they benefit (from enhanced catalog pages) from the system being the way it is.

I understand your point but decreasing the number of graded races wont make horses run more or against each other. The tracks would adjust the schedules and we would still be left with these uninspiring races. The way to fix this issue is to find owners and trainers that are willing to simply run more. The reason that these abbreviated campaigns were accepted was the success of a few trainers who may or not have had an extra edge as well during that period. Naturally the edge isnt widely available but the 'spacing' of races was the circumstantial evidence left along the way. Plus the Breeders Cup which was supposed to be the event that tied all the other events throughout the country together has come to either be the end all of end alls (when the favorites win) or fairly meaningless (when the big horses skip it or lose).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I understand what's been said here but it also illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in the game.

This idea that if a horse loses they're suddenly no good and their accomplishments are tarnished is lunacy. Racing became the game that was easy to fall in love with because people challenged their horses, it was a sport. It didn't matter if you lost. Everyone and their brother knew that Secretariat was not 100% leading up to the Whitney, including Ron Turcotte but there was no way he wasn't going to run. He ran and he lost, but he still had opportunities to restore any lost luster and we don't remember him as the horse that lost the Whitney.

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

Very true. And the fact that the competition in the upper levels of the game is so thin makes this even a more disturbing trend.