Jackson passes on Belmont with Rachel Alexandra

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I actually give Jackson a lot of credit for doing right by the horse. As most of you probably know, Jackson has a very serious health issue and may not be around for too long. Many people in that situation would be selfish and would just want to watch their horse run even if it wasn't in the best interest of the horse. Instead of being selfish and putting himself first, Jackson put the horse first. I give him a lot of credit for that.

How do you know what's in the best interest of the horse?

[fpsoxfan]

Correct decision. It still makes for a wild and crazy Belmont Stakes!

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Correct decision. It still makes for a wild and crazy Belmont Stakes!

Huh? What's wild or crazy about it?

[Bobby Fischer]

Im surprised that she wants to opt out.

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Huh? What's wild or crazy about it?

Ummm....may not be wild and crazy but there's history that suggest that it could be.

2008- Da'Tara - 38.5-1 Had the triple
2007- Rags beats Curlin
2006- Jazil in a mild upset
2004- Birdstone- 36-1 Had the triple
2002- Sarava - 70.25-1 Wish I had that triple
1999- "The Kid" 29.75-1

I'd have to say that supports my statement.

It's a horrible decision considering it's a high probability she'll be retired at the end of the year. Especially if they run her against the girls all summer. Snooze city.

What I want to know is how can this sport grow when it is being controlled by the sheets? All the sheets do is turn these horsemen into gigantic vaginas.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It's a horrible decision considering it's a high probability she'll be retired at the end of the year. Especially if they run her against the girls all summer. Snooze city.

What I want to know is how can this sport grow when it is being controlled by the sheets? All the sheets do is turn these horsemen into gigantic vaginas.

I completely agree with what you're saying but he did mention after the Preakness that she will run against males again. I don't see why he'd even bother to run her against females. Hasn't that been asked and answered already?

NT

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I completely agree with what you're saying but he did mention after the Preakness that she will run against males again. I don't see why he'd even bother to run her against females. Hasn't that been asked and answered already?

NT

Maybe so. I don't read any articles pertaining to Jackson and if he's in a story I tend to skip over what he says because of fear of projectile vomiting.

I just find it odd that all of a sudden a horse who has been running very well and at a moderately frequent rate needs more than 3 weeks rest. Especially when the horse is owned by Mr. Sporting.

[hurricanefrank]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Maybe so. I don't read any articles pertaining to Jackson and if he's in a story I tend to skip over what he says because of fear of projectile vomiting.

I just find it odd that all of a sudden a horse who has been running very well and at a moderately frequent rate needs more than 3 weeks rest. Especially when the horse is owned by Mr. Sporting.

Perhaps it's as simple as the horse just isn't right. And if she isn't right there's ZERO reason to run her.

[tector]

If she stays healthy and is on form she will run against boys again, or Zenyatta, or both, so just chill.

And to "ateamstupid" who asked:

How do you know what's in the best interest of the horse?

If Jess Jackson tells me it is in her best interest not to run, then a fortiori just about anyone else can say the same thing with a HIGH level of confidence.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by tector

If she stays healthy and is on form she will run against boys again, or Zenyatta, or both, so just chill.

And to "ateamstupid" who asked:



If Jess Jackson tells me it is in her best interest not to run, then a fortiori just about anyone else can say the same thing with a HIGH level of confidence.

Awesome, keep on accepting what trainers and owners say as gospel. The horse has absolutely no soundness issues and there aren't any big races on the horizon for months. She's got plenty of foundation and I don't understand why everyone's so quick to say "this is in the best interest of the horse" as if they're in her phucking barn. I think they don't believe she can go 12 furlongs and would've been passed by Mine That Bird if the Preakness were 1/16th longer. I'm not stating that as fact though, like some of the "doing right by the horse" experts.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Awesome, keep on accepting what trainers and owners say as gospel. The horse has absolutely no soundness issues and there aren't any big races on the horizon for months. She's got plenty of foundation and I don't understand why everyone's so quick to say "this is in the best interest of the horse" as if they're in her phucking barn. I think they don't believe she can go 12 furlongs and would've been passed by Mine That Bird if the Preakness were 1/16th longer. I'm not stating that as fact though, like some of the "doing right by the horse" experts.

Thanks for taking the "aptly named" out by the way braveheart

You are right. The distance is a question mark. And you are right that she was getting tired in the Preakness and might have gotten beat had the race been 1 1/4 miles. When you consider those things, why in the world would they want to bring the horse back in 3 weeks running 1 1/2 miles? How would that be in the horse's best interest?

[letswastemoney]

Mine That Bird will bring in some people.

Although now that I look back on it...maybe it would have been better for horse racing overall if RA never entered the Preakness if she wasn't going to go on to the Belmont. They basically stole the chance at seeing a horse run for Triple Crown glory, not that I'm saying MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont, but just the opportunity to watch a horse go for the Triple Crown would have generated so much interest that it's a shame RA's camp took that away from them and from horse racing, and now they are basically saying "We won, we don't need to face him again to prove ourselves."

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

How do you know what's in the best interest of the horse?

It's just common sense in my opinion. She just ran a really hard race against the boys on only two weeks rest. To bring her back in 3 weeks and ask her to run 1 1/2 miles would simply be asking too much. I can't tell you for sure that she wouldn't win, but I think there is a high probability that it would totally knock her out and then she probably wouldn't be able to run for a few months. The risk/reward of running her in the Belmont simply is not there IMO.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's just common sense in my opinion. She just ran a really hard race against the boys on only two weeks rest. To bring her back in 3 weeks and ask her to run 1 1/2 miles would simply be asking too much. I can't tell you for sure that she wouldn't win, but I think there is a high probability that it would totally knock her out and then she probably wouldn't be able to run for a few months. The risk/reward of running her in the Belmont simply is not there IMO.

Yep, she could run but then you wouldn't see her again until maybe October. A little rest now will save her for an exciting campaign. The Haskel, Travers? Man, how exciting would that be.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Yep, she could run but then you wouldn't see her again until maybe October. A little rest now will save her for an exciting campaign. The Haskel, Travers? Man, how exciting would that be.

Why? Why would one more race knock her out until October? This is ridiculous. How the hell do you say this with any certainty? No one gives a flying crap about the Haskell and Travers in the mainstream. We're all so damn excited when the Preakness ratings are up, then when they duck the last remaining nationally important race with the sound horse who brought those ratings, we applaud. This is ridiculous.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Why? Why would one more race knock her out until October? This is ridiculous. How the hell do you say this with any certainty? No one gives a flying crap about the Haskell and Travers in the mainstream. We're all so damn excited when the Preakness ratings are up, then when they duck the last remaining nationally important race with the sound horse who brought those ratings, we applaud. This is ridiculous.

I know it does sound ridiculous but if you talk to enough trainers they will tell you the same thing. The series takes alot out of horses who are bred fragile anyway. Besides, she was dead on her feet in the win circle at the Preakness. It is the right decision for the horse and if it wasn't for Jackson, would have been made last week.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

I know it does sound ridiculous but if you talk to enough trainers they will tell you the same thing. The series takes alot out of horses who are bred fragile anyway. Besides, she was dead on her feet in the win circle at the Preakness. It is the right decision for the horse and if it wasn't for Jackson, would have been made last week.

It clearly took a hell of a lot out of Curlin and Hard Spun two years back. They were never seen again, except for those 4 more combined graded stakes victories and 3 Grade I's in the summer and fall and 1-2 finish in the BC Classic.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It clearly took a hell of a lot out of Curlin and Hard Spun two years back. They were never seen again, except for those 4 more combined graded stakes victories and 3 Grade I's in the summer and fall and 1-2 finish in the BC Classic.

Curlin's effort in the Haskel was his dullest effort all year. He rebounded with a sound effort in the jockey cup gold cup against Lawyer Ron. But his dull effort had to do with his difficulty rebounding from that triple crown series. Now Rachel may be able to handle it better than Curlin because she has alot more bottom to her than Curlin. She raced 6 times as a two year old. However, if Jackson could see a way to run her and win, he would obviously do it. A Belmont victory would stamp her as the greatest filly of all time in most fan's books. A place she may get to anyway. Hard Spun still amazes me. I still can't see how a horse could run those fractions for so friggin long.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It clearly took a hell of a lot out of Curlin and Hard Spun two years back. They were never seen again, except for those 4 more combined graded stakes victories and 3 Grade I's in the summer and fall and 1-2 finish in the BC Classic.

Those two horses were exceptions to what's happened over the past 10-15 years to 3yos that compete in those three races (counting the Oaks because of it's timing.) Even two of them seem to knock many out.