Rachel Alexandra

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

His '03 Vosburgh win was my favorite. His turn of foot was

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxoPR7THZvM

Consider that he went wire-to-wire a year later in winning the BC Classic.

He was incredible, it would have been even more incredible if Frankel wasn't winning everything back then...

[CSC]

Originally Posted by monipenny

Why the hell does this deflect from what the Zapper did in his brief career. I truly believe his most magnificent victory was his last- the Met Mile. Jon Nerud called Frankel after the race and said " the greatest milers have the most influence on the breed in racing."

Do I really have to give you an answer for you to understand? You really want me to...Okay then, think of Roger Clemons before the steroids scandal, and now think of him after the scandal. Notice any difference of your thoughts towards him?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

Do I really have to give you an answer for you to understand? You really want me to...Okay then, think of Roger Clemons before the steroids scandal, and now think of him after the scandal. Notice any difference of your thoughts towards him?

Are you trying to say that Ghostzapper's career has something to do with Frankel's usage of drugs on his horses? If so, I think you're absolutely dead wrong.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Are you trying to say that Ghostzapper's career has something to do with Frankel's usage of drugs on his horses? If so, I think you're absolutely dead wrong.

NT

GZ would probably been a very good racehorse regardless if he was on anything or not, just as Roger was a very good pitcher before he his physique began noticably changing. Then he became even better, wonder why... I hate to generalize but back in those days Frankel horses would win with bad trips, good trips, peculiar trips, I know I bet him quite often to some success. I'm not sure why you think I am dead wrong, if so I am interested why you think so.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by CSC

GZ would probably been a very good racehorse regardless if he was on anything or not, just as Roger was a very good pitcher before he his physique began noticably changing. Then he became even better, wonder why... I hate to generalize but back in those days Frankel horses would win with bad trips, good trips, peculiar trips, I know I bet him quite often to some success. I'm not sure why you think I am dead wrong, if so I am interested why you think so.

First of all, you're equating two things that are incredibly different. Roger Clemens' alleged HGH usage and you accusing Frankel of using steroids (i think) are pretty different.

Frankel had a great run in the early part of this decade because he had excellent horses. Having Edmund Gann's business was strong, he was getting good horses from Juddmonte left and right and Stronach basically gave him everything that could run.

He has since fallen on hard(er) times but to try to soil a horse like Ghostzapper's record because you suppose Frankel was using steroids on him is unfair. It takes away from a horse who despite a wealth of physical problems, accomplished many incredible feats and brought his best every time he ran.

Most of all, I think you're wrong because of your complete generalization. You seem to remember Frankel horses winning with all kinds of trips, and now you don't, so I guess he was using. Those just aren't steps I have in my way of thinking.

NT

[CSC]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

First of all, you're equating two things that are incredibly different. Roger Clemens' alleged HGH usage and you accusing Frankel of using steroids (i think) are pretty different.

Frankel had a great run in the early part of this decade because he had excellent horses. Having Edmund Gann's business was strong, he was getting good horses from Juddmonte left and right and Stronach basically gave him everything that could run.

He has since fallen on hard(er) times but to try to soil a horse like Ghostzapper's record because you suppose Frankel was using steroids on him is unfair. It takes away from a horse who despite a wealth of physical problems, accomplished many incredible feats and brought his best every time he ran.

Most of all, I think you're wrong because of your complete generalization. You seem to remember Frankel horses winning with all kinds of trips, and now you don't, so I guess he was using. Those just aren't steps I have in my way of thinking.

NT

It does for me, You don't think he has talented horses in his stable right now? We saw 2 just yesterday in Visit and Zambezi Sun. You'll probably say it is a generalization but there was a time when Frankel entered in a stakes race, regardless of trip, class jump, layoff you would most likely find him in the winner's circle.

[CSC]

I am curious would the same thought process apply to St. Liam? Or is his reputation tarnished via association with a known cheater. If not why the different standards?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by monipenny

That's quite a exaggeration about Frankel and the horses he entered. He was MORE well meant when going up in class rather then running in maidens, alw, overnight stakes, etc. He had a phenomenal run just like previously stated by other poster cause he had horses coming out of his arse.

The obvious question is why did he lose horses when he could do no wrong.. Valid question correct? That is if you subscribe to the theory he's running a bunch of stiffs right now...