Asmussen: No Rachel for Blossom

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Derby Trial week would be perfect for both of them.

Will Churchill have the business savvy to make an offer?

After watching their COO try and turn on a vacuum cleaner last night, I'd say slim and none are where my money is.

Originally Posted by GBBob

After watching their COO try and turn on a vacuum cleaner last night, I'd say slim and none are where my money is.

Exactly. It's sad.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Would I, though? That's what matters when you're responding to me.

Whatever they want to do with their horse is good enough "excuse" for me, which has basically been my stance the entire time.

Count me still "on the bad side." Though I'm with miraja that I wish they would've waited to see how she was coming out of it before saying that. Knowing them, it's not even official yet.

What it really comes down to Brian out of the camouflage of the statement of “doing what is good by the horse statement” is they just don’t believe she can beat Zenyatta in the Apple Blossom in a month’s time. The problem is when you have a horse of this billing, in race publications to racing boards, to respected writers. The reasons of not running in the Apple Blossom look bad from an optics point of view, this is especially true when both connections agreed to the conditions a month ago they would meet, even having the race bumped back a week for Rachel. I don’t think anyone with a reasonable head expects Rachel to be perfect, however Jess Jackson and Steve Asmussen seem to have a problem with this thinking, they somehow feel it taints her image if she loses, and it reflects in the races they select for her to the races they ultimately avoid.

[Danzig]

i've seen that show before, altho not last night....amazing how utterly inept some of the ceo's/coo's of these companies turn out to be.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by CSC

I don’t think anyone with a reasonable head expects Rachel to be perfect, however Jess Jackson and Steve Asmussen seem to have a problem with this thinking, they somehow feel it taints her image if she loses, and it reflects in the races they select for her to the races they ultimately avoid.

I don't believe they fear a loss as much as they feared Moss retiring z if she had won the Apple Blossom. That is why Jackson said things like they should meet 3 times. The year is still young and plenty of opportunities remain to face each other.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Based on?

info from toga chuck

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Theatrical

Why? I am simply amazed that people want to blame one set of connections for the decisions another set made for THEIR horse. What happened to the word "no"? JJ/SA said initially that RA wouldn't be ready for the AB. No one would argue that. But, it didn't stop there. At any time, JJ could say she won't be ready when the pressure started to build for her to run. He didn't.
This is JM/JS' fault? They made choices for their horse only and they are being hammered because RA's connections have been so indecisive? Good grief.

Like I said, as pompous as Jackson has been, the pathetic vote-for-me Rachel stinks act that the Mosses have displayed the last six months is equally as offensive. The only thing that would be worse is if they hired Jay Hovdey as their cheerleader in chief.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

info from toga chuck

So the people that are giving you info from Saratoga have a crystal ball that tells them that she would be short a month from now after having had a race and probably three more works under her belt?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the people that are giving you info from Saratoga have a crystal ball that tells them that she would be short a month from now after having had a race and probably three more works under her belt?

chuck she just started working on jan 27 , zenyatta hasn't missed a beat since oct

ra has been out since when sept

so from sept tp jan she did nothing - correct

1st work on jan 27 , zenyatta didn't miss a beat

they both ran yesterday and the AB is when 3 weeks - how could she possible be ready to face Z that amount of time? how could she be ready for a peak effort ?

[Sightseek]

I feel bad for the poor folks who can't collect $100,000 now just for putting their horse in the gate.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

chuck she just started working on jan 27 , zenyatta hasn't missed a beat since oct

ra has been out since when sept

so from sept tp jan she did nothing - correct

1st work on jan 27 , zenyatta didn't miss a beat

they both ran yesterday and the AB is when 3 weeks - how could she possible be ready to face Z that amount of time? how could she be ready for a peak effort ?

So Assmussen rushed the horse to get ready for last Sat's race when he knew she couldnt be ready on April 9th anyway?

This is bs logic especially when you know that she isnt running so there is no chance that you can be proven wrong.

Horses used to prep in sprint races all the time before stretching out. I guess none of them were ready either.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So Assmussen rushed the horse to get ready for last Sat's race when he knew she couldnt be ready on April 9th anyway?

This is bs logic especially when you know that she isnt running so there is no chance that you can be proven wrong.

Horses used to prep in sprint races all the time before stretching out. I guess none of them were ready either.

let's say you were the trainer chuck and mr jackson came to you and wanted you to make the April 9th race against Z. would you be able to get her ready to face Z in that amount of time ?

the facts are RA off since sept , works start jan 27 , Zenyatta retired but not missing a beat in training for some odd reason since the BC - is there any possible way that RA could be at 100 % for this race on april 9th , we all know Z is and will be at 100% , but could rachel be there? is it really fair for RA to face Z on april 9th given the fact that 1 horse has not missed a beat since oct and the other one had a 5 mth layoff and will have about 2 1/2 months of acclerated training? if the shoe was on the other foot would sheirffs really run Z against RA?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by gales0678

let's say you were the trainer chuck and mr jackson came to you and wanted you to make the April 9th race against Z. would you be able to get her ready to face Z in that amount of time ?

the facts are RA off since sept , works start jan 27 , Zenyatta retired but not missing a beat in training for some odd reason since the BC - is there any possible way that RA could be at 100 % for this race on april 9th , we all know Z is and will be at 100% , but could rachel be there? is it really fair for RA to face Z on april 9th given the fact that 1 horse has not missed a beat since oct and the other one had a 5 mth layoff and will have about 2 1/2 months of acclerated training? if the shoe was on the other foot would sheirffs really run Z against RA?

Rachel actually didn't start working until January 31.

NT

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

let's say you were the trainer chuck and mr jackson came to you and wanted you to make the April 9th race against Z. would you be able to get her ready to face Z in that amount of time ?

the facts are RA off since sept , works start jan 27 , Zenyatta retired but not missing a beat in training for some odd reason since the BC - is there any possible way that RA could be at 100 % for this race on april 9th , we all know Z is and will be at 100% , but could rachel be there? is it really fair for RA to face Z on april 9th given the fact that 1 horse has not missed a beat since oct and the other one had a 5 mth layoff and will have about 2 1/2 months of acclerated training? if the shoe was on the other foot would sheirffs really run Z against RA?

Your logic makes sense if you are talking about the 1st race back off of a layoff, not the second. What Zenyatta has done or is doing doesnt have any bearing on RA's fitness level.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by gales0678

let's say you were the trainer chuck and mr jackson came to you and wanted you to make the April 9th race against Z. would you be able to get her ready to face Z in that amount of time ?

the facts are RA off since sept , works start jan 27 , Zenyatta retired but not missing a beat in training for some odd reason since the BC - is there any possible way that RA could be at 100 % for this race on april 9th , we all know Z is and will be at 100% , but could rachel be there? is it really fair for RA to face Z on april 9th given the fact that 1 horse has not missed a beat since oct and the other one had a 5 mth layoff and will have about 2 1/2 months of acclerated training? if the shoe was on the other foot would sheirffs really run Z against RA?

I still don't understand what I'm missing here.
Did RA run 130 BSFs all last year and all of the sudden run a 75 last Saturday? I don't think so. Did she run back to her top numbers in her first back? No, but she ran well enough and fast enough that it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that she might be close to where she was last year in her next start.
People (including the connections apparently) make it sound as if she went from being Citation last year to being a $5K claimer in her first race this year. Neither is the case.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your logic makes sense if you are talking about the 1st race back off of a layoff, not the second. What Zenyatta has done or is doing doesnt have any bearing on RA's fitness level.

ok simpler question - if the roles were reversed do you think sheriffs would run against RA in the AB ?- say Z took off from sept to late jan and ra didn't miss a beat since oct , do you think sheriffs and moss would agree to that ?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I still don't understand what I'm missing here.
Did RA run 130 BSFs all last year and all of the sudden run a 75 last Saturday? I don't think so. Did she run back to her top numbers in her first back? No, but she ran well enough and fast enough that it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that she might be close to where she was last year in her next start.
People (including the connections apparently) make it sound as if she went from being Citation last year to being a $5K claimer in her her first race this year. Neither is the case.

again here are the facts:

1 horse off from sept to late jan , 1 horse working regurlaly even though she was supposed to be retired since oct

they both race sat and will go again in 3 weeks - who has the fitness edge ?? are we to believe that Z has no fitness edge?

are we to believe that if the roles were reversed moss and sheriffs would acclerate Z's training from late jan to get her ready to run against a horse that hasn't missed a beat since oct in the AB?

[smuthg]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

I don't believe they fear a loss as much as they feared Moss retiring z if she had won the Apple Blossom. That is why Jackson said things like they should meet 3 times. The year is still young and plenty of opportunities remain to face each other.

Why would they do that? wouldn't it be too late to breed her? Plus I really think they enjoy watching the horse run... yeah, I'm pretty sure they feel like they got the raw end of the deal last year (and the year before), I disagree (at least for 2009), Rachel had a better year, doesn't mean I think Rachel's better, but I think they are going to do what they can to actively pursue a Horse of the Year award in 2010.

[smuthg]

Originally Posted by gales0678

ok simpler question - if the roles were reversed do you think sheriffs would run against RA in the AB ?- say Z took off from sept to late jan and ra didn't miss a beat since oct , do you think sheriffs and moss would agree to that ?

the proof is out there from last year... Zenyatta didn't race until June; they took their time with her off a hard campaign.

[PeteMugg]

Originally Posted by gales0678

again here are the facts:

1 horse off from sept to late jan , 1 horse working regurlaly even though she was supposed to be retired since oct

they both race sat and will go again in 3 weeks - who has the fitness edge ?? are we to believe that Z has no fitness edge?

are we to believe that if the roles were reversed moss and sheriffs would acclerate Z's training from late jan to get her ready to run against a horse that hasn't missed a beat since oct in the AB?

Would we be questioning RA's fitness if Zardana wasn't in that race? She would have posted a nice Beyer in a win by open lengths. A lot of folks would be handing her the AB victory already.

On the flip side, Zenyatta's number was much lower on that crap surface in her home state. And she only beat a bunch of mules. This is true, I read it on a forum somewhere. Sounds like Zenyatta is the one who should be backing down.

Guess she doesn't read Derby Trail.