Rachel Alexandra Retired

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Rachel will remain one of the greatest 3-year olds to ever grace the racing world. She did not return to such greatness as a 4-year old, but I venture to say that she didn't embarrass herself either. That run she made in the Personal Ensign brings tears to my eyes. Watching this great filly running on heart alone that last furlong was as great as watching her win any race that she did.

Amen.

Strange timing for the announcement, I must say. But then, there were several strange things about the management of her 2010 campaign.

What a 3-year-old season! I'm so thankful I got to see it. Best wishes, Rachel.

[smuthg]

Originally Posted by smuthg

I only saw her in person once, and that was in the fantasy at Oaklawn. One of the most impressive performances I've ever seen. Calvin didn't touch until just past the wire when he gave her a slight tap to encourage her to get a 1 1/8th. I think they were halfway down the back stretch before the rest of the field crossed the wire. when you have your first adult beverage (or your next) today, I think a toast is in order to Rachel...

Funny that Hal Wiggins just mentioned this on ATR... A shame the "Great" Jess has yet to thank Hal for his work with the filly.

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

no doubt it would have been a great event and horse racing would have had some attention that day... but it would still have been just one day. I just disagreed with the sentence of hers that I highlighted (The match-up would have done wonders for the sports popularity and general public opinion, they failed.) not her whole post. The two should have met. But it wasnt going to make anything popular, except maybe for 2 minutes. The gambling aspect is the only way this sport can become popular again... these smart marketers at tracks need to figure out how to make that happen.

Both owners are still terrible for never making it happen... I just feel it like it would have satisfied us horse racing junkies, and not too much else.

Are you all so blinded by wagering that you don't realize the way to save this sport is to make it appealing to the youth?!?! The value of a lifelong fan with true passion for the thoroughbred racehorse is much more important to this sports future than anything else. There will always be those interested in solely the gambling aspect of this game, there are those horse lovers that could not care even a little about placing a bet. But the real beauty of it all is that when exciting races happen between THE BEST horses your going to see a little bit of both come out in more than the majority of viewers. NO singular race drastically changes the popularity status of this game (I can see where what I said was read as that), but it is more the accumulation of consistent great rivalries and great races that will bit by bit bring more and more fans out of the woodwork. Without getting the two best horses of this decade to race against each other we are going nowhere but backwards.

[iamthelurker]

This is definitely foreshadowing that Mayweather vs. Pacquiao isn't gonna happen either.

[Arletta]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Here is what I basically think happened.

They could tell early on this year that she wasnt the same. And yes they picked their spots. Thinking that she would snap out of it and turn around. Figuring that if she won a big prep before the BC and then a BC race that the year would still be considered a success.

But its getting late now and they just saw she wasnt going to be the same horse.

So question becomes do they run her anyway and if so for what reason?

They did the logical thing and retired her.

If this is the case, then like Steve Haskin just mentioned, why did they work her like they did on Monday? It was like a exhibition for the barn crew and that's it....

I am disappointed as most of us are and think there is more to this than what is being said by Jackson.

[slotdirt]

Can we start a petition to get iamthelurker to go back to doing what he does best, i.e., lurking?

As great a race as the Woodward was....it zapped her that day and she was never the same horse. ...ask Rags to Riches.

Scat

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

The problem was that RA didn't want to race anymore.

This is ridiculous. Go back and watch the fleur de lis again from this year and then explain to me why it is so much worse than most of her races last year, or how it is evidence that she "didn't want to race."
Just because she won the Oaks by a huge margin last year doesn't mean she ran better in that race than she did this year going 9f at CD. In fact, she basically ran the exact same race again except this year she ran a little bit faster while also carrying a couple of extra pounds.
Clearly she didn't turn in performances this year that were quite on par with what she did in the Haskell and Woodward last year, but her races this year stack up pretty well with what she did last year at Oaklawn, and in the Oaks and Preakness, etc. I think the idea that she fell out of form dramatically this year is completely wrong.

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Can we start a petition to get iamthelurker to go back to doing what he does best, i.e., lurking?

You have a lot of posts.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by scat daddy

As great a race as the Woodward was....it zapped her that day and she was never the same horse.

Really? My theory is that she was so depressed about Law and Order being taken off the air that she decided to only give 98% effort this year as a form of protest.

Where does this crap come from?

[slotdirt]

I just don't understand how anybody could possibly surmise that anything but gambling drives horse racing. That's the way it's been forever in this country, and that's the way it's going to be. Having five year olds run burlap sack races inbetween the fifth and sixth at Laurel on a Thursday is all well and good, but besides buying some soda pop and a funnel cake, what the hell do young folks do for racing besides think horses are pretty and get in the way of the folks who actually spend money?

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I just don't understand how anybody could possibly surmise that anything but gambling drives horse racing. That's the way it's been forever in this country, and that's the way it's going to be. Having five year olds run burlap sack races inbetween the fifth and sixth at Laurel on a Thursday is all well and good, but besides buying some soda pop and a funnel cake, what the hell do young folks do for racing besides think horses are pretty and get in the way of the folks who actually spend money?

My point was that if you spike someone in the 10-18 age groups interest now, that by the time they are an old grump like yourself, they will confidently say that horse racing is their favorite sport. And from ages 18-90 they will also be a helpful part of the handle just like the rest of us.

[slotdirt]

How do you get someone interested in a sport for its stars when the best of the best rarely appear on a racetrack more than four or five times a season? Sounds great in theory, but horse racing for the general populace has permanently been reduced to a three race schedule and then a tiny blip for the "world" championships in October/November. Sad, but true.

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

How do you get someone interested in a sport for its stars when the best of the best rarely appear on a racetrack more than four or five times a season? Sounds great in theory, but horse racing for the general populace has permanently been reduced to a three race schedule and then a tiny blip for the "world" championships in October/November. Sad, but true.

SAD BUT TRUE IS MY POINT, now with the unchangeable fact that you just stated, wouldn't it be really nice if just ONE of those 4 to 5 races were as big as Z vs. RA would have been.

I gotta mess with clyde once more this week before I go lurking again, so sorry my posts that hold some form of youthful enthusiasm have bothered your oldness slot.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

Are you all so blinded by wagering that you don't realize the way to save this sport is to make it appealing to the youth?!?! The value of a lifelong fan with true passion for the thoroughbred racehorse is much more important to this sports future than anything else. There will always be those interested in solely the gambling aspect of this game, there are those horse lovers that could not care even a little about placing a bet. But the real beauty of it all is that when exciting races happen between THE BEST horses your going to see a little bit of both come out in more than the majority of viewers. NO singular race drastically changes the popularity status of this game (I can see where what I said was read as that), but it is more the accumulation of consistent great rivalries and great races that will bit by bit bring more and more fans out of the woodwork. Without getting the two best horses of this decade to race against each other we are going nowhere but backwards.

I disagree with the bolded. people who watch races and dont wager on them dont hold much value to this sport IMO. Personally, I dont hold value to this sport because I do not wager much. Everyone involved at the race track makes money only one way.. through wagering.

Though you arent going to get an arguement from me about the stupid owners & trainers these days that dont race the horses and dont create rivalries. It would be very good for the excitement of the people involved in the sport, I just question what it will do to bring in more gamblers. I think its a different world now than the 70's.. dont know if rivalries would bring in the new blood. Besides, things arent going to change so even if there are rivalries.. what are two horses running against each other 4 times and then retiring going to do for anyone?

Showing people that they can make money from this sport is the best way to grow popularity IMO. There are TONS of people out there who love to gamble... poker, sports betting, etc. We somehow need to get their attention. I think that once those action junkies could visit a race track live a few times.. it would create so much new blood. How do we get them to come to the track?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

This is definitely foreshadowing that Mayweather vs. Pacquiao isn't gonna happen either.

lol

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I disagree with the bolded. people who watch races and dont wager on them dont hold much value to this sport IMO. Personally, I dont hold value to this sport because I do not wager much. Everyone involved at the race track makes money only one way.. through wagering.

Though you arent going to get an arguement from me about the stupid owners & trainers these days that dont race the horses and dont create rivalries. It would be very good for the excitement of the people involved in the sport, I just question what it will do to bring in more gamblers. I think its a different world now than the 70's.. dont know if rivalries would bring in the new blood. Besides, things arent going to change so even if there are rivalries.. what are two horses running against each other 4 times and then retiring going to do for anyone?

Showing people that they can make money from this sport is the best way to grow popularity IMO. There are TONS of people out there who love to gamble... poker, sports betting, etc. We somehow need to get their attention. I think that once those action junkies could visit a race track live a few times.. it would create so much new blood. How do we get them to come to the track?

Well I hate to say it but you can't make serious money playing horses unless your very very talented. The REAL action junkies your talking about know that they have a better chance winning at poker, sports betting, etc.

I also think that having tracks change the way they operate would be much harder to pull off than getting a bunch of big egos to realize they are missing opportunities to not only help the sport but create history.

Though, after writing that I have slots debby downer voice (im guessing what he sounds like) in my head saying none of it can be done, either route. But hey, whats wrong with at least trying.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

This is definitely foreshadowing that Mayweather vs. Pacquiao isn't gonna happen either.

Mayweather would have destroyed him. No loss other than tons of $ to the fight promoters/Vegas/participants.

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Mayweather would have destroyed him. No loss other than tons of $ to the fight promoters/Vegas/participants.

Though I agree, what would you rather see?

[iamthelurker]

I gotta stop posting, clearly not lurking anymore, clyde I'm coming for you, you just wont know when...