I'll be the First to ask?

[Peter Berry]

Reach for the stars - first filly to win the Triple Crown.

[letswastemoney]

You don't have many chances in your lifetime to win the Kentucky Derby. Some people only have 1 chance. Might as well take a shot.

[chucklestheclown]

I agree. Losing the Derby would not devalue her at all, winning would not only increase her value but make her a hero after last year. Winning the Triple Crown would be priceless.

Last year would have been neat.
This year its way tough.

Wait for the Belmont, after the carnage.

[Peter Berry]

Has a filly ever run in all three legs of the Triple Crown?

[HaloWishingwell]

I know WINNING COLORS did in 1988.

[horseofcourse]

Genuine Risk...1st, 2nd, 2nd.

[Peter Berry]

Is Rachel Alexandra better than Genuine Risk?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Peter Berry

Is Rachel Alexandra better than Genuine Risk?

let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[Indian Charlie]

It would be fun to see Carlsbad go in the Kentucky Oaks.

[Thunder Gulch]

In many recent years she may have rated a good shot, but this group of colts is looking pretty darned strong.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

It would be fun to see Carlsbad go in the Kentucky Oaks.

Yeah, for the six furlongs or so that she'd be relevant.

NT

[Indian Charlie]

I very much doubt that NT.

Her one two turned race she was running strong at the end of the race and she seems to be very push button. She's not speed crazy at all.

This filly could be a lot better than most people think.

At the very least, RA wouldn't get away with a criminally slow lead again.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by Danzig

let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Admirable restraint is this answer ...

Genuine Risk ran third against males in a G1 race before she even attempted the TC . Her trainer was upset by this and almost didn't attempt the TC series ..

Rachel,as good as she seems has yet to win a G1 against her own sex, and has campaigned in lesser arenas overall ...

Is Rachel Alexandra better than Genuine Risk ???

As much as I like her, at this point in her career, I would say not even as good...

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I very much doubt that NT.

Her one two turned race she was running strong at the end of the race and she seems to be very push button. She's not speed crazy at all.

This filly could be a lot better than most people think.

At the very least, RA wouldn't get away with a criminally slow lead again.

Her trainer basically laughed at the idea that she run in the Oaks, so I doubt it happens, but even if it does, Rachel Alexandra registered a handy win sitting just off the pace in her 2009 debut. She hasn't shown that rating just off the pace will be a problem.

Further, 47 and change at Oaklawn is not criminally slow whatsoever.

NT

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Her trainer basically laughed at the idea that she run in the Oaks, so I doubt it happens, but even if it does, Rachel Alexandra registered a handy win sitting just off the pace in her 2009 debut. She hasn't shown that rating just off the pace will be a problem.

Further, 47 and change at Oaklawn is not criminally slow whatsoever.

NT

Interesting. I read somewhere they were giving it consideration.

She doesn't seem likely though.

RA was walking.

[ateamstupid]

I do hope the threadstarter realizes he's not the first to ask this.

[King Glorious]

A couple of years ago, Coolmore had Ravel and Rags to Riches. They decided not to run Rags in the SA Derby and instead sent Ravel there. The owners of Zenyatta don't want to run her against the boys in the big races and I'd assume that them having Tiago for those races plays at least some part in their decision. While I do understand it from the business side, the sporting side of me says that if you have a race you want to win, you take your best chance to win it. Rachel may be odds on for the Oaks and very likely to win it but she's also got a good shot to do something special in the Derby. Why not take a shot? If she loses, why can't she come back to her own division in all the big races in NY this summer? People act like losing the Derby is the end of the world. It's not. And if she wouldn't even have to win the Derby. Even finishing 2nd or 3rd would greatly increase the respect she'd get. Look at Eight Belles last year. And if she were to win the race......it would be historic. You don't get many chances to make history. If she were a colt that was looking at being the 6th or 7th choice, nobody would hesitate to say that he should be going instead of skipping the race to be odds on in the Derby Trial or the Withers or the Peter Pan. Only one horse will win the Derby and nobody is worried that the 19 that lose will be ruined. Go for it.

I'd give her time off until the summer races. Why bother risking this pwecious wittle horsie in the the Oaks? The Derby? Insanity!!! She's just a wittle baybay.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

If she were a colt that was looking at being the 6th or 7th choice, nobody would hesitate to say that he should be going instead of skipping the race to be odds on in the Derby Trial or the Withers or the Peter Pan.

I'm not disagreeing in general with the premise of your post, I just feel differently -- but c'mon, aren't you being just a smidge intellectually dishonest in trying to compare the Kentucky Oaks for a 3yo filly with the Derby Trial, Peter Pan, or Withers?

I don't have a problem with anyone who thinks she should go to the Derby, I just don't. On the other hand, your comparison at the end of outrageous.