As expected Crist is the man about the girl

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I could/may/hope to own a special horse like RA some day. All I know is if I ever owned her, she would be on the first flight to LA to run in run in the BC.
Win, lose or draw I would never put my personal agenda about surfaces against a great match up.

Bob I hope you get one and I hope Chuck does as well. Let's dream.. You have your 3 year old filly machine you just won the logical Preakness, Haskell, Woodward. But the other champion is a turf mare are you going to the Turf Classic? Would you race a dirt horse on turf? Isn't Pro Ride NOT dirt the same way that Turf isnt dirt?
It is not about loving dirt. I have zero issue with POLY actually I think it is fine for some tracks. I just demand that it be considered a separate surface. Why the BC peopel were foolish enough not to comprehend this is frustrating and the sole cause for confusion. I actually would rather watch RA on try turf. I wonder if she could be as special.

If Jackson wanted to get her ready for BC he would need to ship her to CA. after the Wodward then look for a spot to see if she handled the stuff. Tom and Chuck contention is she already handled the stuff...Against what type. I am sure she could win a 10 claiming on the turf does that mean she handles turf? You have a once in a generation horse shouldn't she go in the Beldame against Zenyatta. Shouldn't we all be pissed that the Moss's are denying Zenyatta an opportunity to prove her greatness. Zenyatta has earned the right to face RA. The Beldame would be an awesome spot for her and racing. Instead you want Jess to skip the Beldame, and start prepping for a surface switch or just sending her there work her once or twice and send her out. Chuck says who cares if she loses they all lose, which is 100% true but it seems silly and it is all because the BC and racing seems to think dirt and poly are interchangable.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Bob I hope you get one and I hope Chuck does as well. Let's dream.. You have you 3 year old filly machine you just won the logical Preakness, Haskell, Woodward. But the other champion is a turf mare are you going to the Turf Classic? Would you race a filly dirt horse on turf? Isn't Pro Ride NOT dirt the same way that Turf isnt dirt?

I would love to try RA on the turf too..why not Fred? If you have nothing to prove and it doesn't have any potential risk physically..go crazy with her. Obviously the 3 yr old and older dirt division horses are limited, so why not look outside the box for new challenges? If she runs 5th in the Arlington Million next year it won't hurt her breeding value at all.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I would love to try RA on the turf too..why not Fred? If you have nothing to prove and it doesn't have any potential risk physically..go crazy with her. Obviously the 3 yr old and older dirt division horses are limited, so why not look outside the box for new challenges? If she runs 5th in the Arlington Million next year it won't hurt her breeding value at all.

Jess might try turf he did with Curlin. Curlin wasn't a turf horse. Rachel may or may not be. I just think this whole mess is caused by the BC people not having a third surface classic.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I would love to try RA on the turf too..why not Fred? If you have nothing to prove and it doesn't have any potential risk physically..go crazy with her. Obviously the 3 yr old and older dirt division horses are limited, so why not look outside the box for new challenges? If she runs 5th in the Arlington Million next year it won't hurt her breeding value at all.

People are very unforgiving of losses. Look at how many people (stupidly) point out that she barely held on in the Preakness. Jackson isn't caring about the breeding value - floundering on a surface because you said "why the hell not" isn't going to earn you any extra points.

Look through the list of the Top 100 of all time - how many of those horses were specific to ONE surface. Are any of us thinking any less of them because of it? I sure hope the hell not.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

People are very unforgiving of losses. Look at how many people (stupidly) point out that she barely held on in the Preakness. Jackson isn't caring about the breeding value - floundering on a surface because you said "why the hell not" isn't going to earn you any extra points.

Look through the list of the Top 100 of all time - how many of those horses were specific to ONE surface. Are any of us thinking any less of them because of it? I sure hope the hell not.

I could care less about being on a Top 100 list. That's not the point..it's a personal agenda he has about the surface..nothing more, nothing less

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I could care less about being on a Top 100 list. That's not the point..it's a personal agenda he has about the surface..nothing more, nothing less

I suppose the connections of Zenyatta have a personal agenda against wet race tracks and competition capable of running a Beyer better than 96.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I suppose the connections of Zenyatta have a personal agenda against wet race tracks and competition capable of running a Beyer better than 96.

I feel the same way about that situation too. They are as accountable for this mess as Jackson.

I wonder when Sheik Mo offers his $10 Million purse in Dubai on their new surface if Jackson will be as stubborn?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I could care less about being on a Top 100 list. That's not the point..it's a personal agenda he has about the surface..nothing more, nothing less

Who freakin cares if he has a personal agenda about the surface - you think it's a wonderful surface and that fine, so run your horses on it. If he thinks it was a bad decision to run the BC at Santa Anita again and doesn't support it than he can run HIS horse elsewhere. Like he is doing - and doing a damn good job at it.

Do you do what everyone tells you you should do with your horses?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Who freakin cares if he has a personal agenda about the surface - you think it's a wonderful surface and that fine, so run your horses on it. If he thinks it was a bad decision to run the BC at Santa Anita again and doesn't support it than he can run HIS horse elsewhere. Like he is doing - and doing a damn good job at it.

Do you do what everyone tells you you should do with your horses?

He's a hypocrite. Last year he took all the glory for running Curlin as a 4 year old and waved the "good of the game" flag proudly. I'm not going to stand firm that poly is good for racing or bad for it...that is a very debateable and legitimate conversation, but in my mind there is no way you can say that not running her in the sport's Championship races is consistant with what he was claiming last year with Curlin.

And I would say the same thing to Zenyatta's connection if the BC was at CD this year and they wouldn't ship there.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GBBob

He's a hypocrite. Last year he took all the glory for running Curlin as a 4 year old and waved the "good of the game" flag proudly. I'm not going to stand firm that poly is good for racing or bad for it...that is a very debateable and legitimate conversation, but in my mind there is no way you can say that not running her in the sport's Championship races is consistant with what he was claiming last year with Curlin.

And I would say the same thing to Zenyatta's connection if the BC was at CD this year and they wouldn't ship there.

At least you're fair with your criticism.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Who freakin cares if he has a personal agenda about the surface - you think it's a wonderful surface and that fine, so run your horses on it. If he thinks it was a bad decision to run the BC at Santa Anita again and doesn't support it than he can run HIS horse elsewhere. Like he is doing - and doing a damn good job at it.

Do you do what everyone tells you you should do with your horses?

When the best horse in the country skips the championship day because of a personal agenda I think it is something to discuss. Say his personal agenda was that he didnt like Frank Stronach and wont race at his tracks? Would you play a different tune then?

And I think that if most of us had the 8 million to buy her after the Oaks we too could do a fine job with her. It is liking saying Albert Pujols is having a great year because Tony LaRussa bats him third in the lineup. Scuds could manage the team and that guy would hit just as almost any trainer/owner combo could win with RA.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When the best horse in the country skips the championship day because of a personal agenda I think it is something to discuss. Say his personal agenda was that he didnt like Frank Stronach and wont race at his tracks? Would you play a different tune then?

And I think that if most of us had the 8 million to buy her after the Oaks we too could do a fine job with her. It is liking saying Albert Pujols is having a great year because Tony LaRussa bats him third in the lineup. Scuds could manage the team and that guy would hit just as almost any trainer/owner combo could win with RA.

There are plenty of legit reasons not to run her on Pro Ride. If DrugS thinks she would be buried there is a dam good reason he is saying it. Sometimes horseman and handicappers need to work together. A friend of mine is a terrific handicapper and some horseman use him for advise. I have seen were his advised has made the trainers look very smart.

DrugS maybe a lot of things but he is no dummy when he says she would be trounced on Pro Ride there is some merit to it. I don't know if he is right but I know he is just not saying it to be an idiot.

[Revidere]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I could care less about being on a Top 100 list. That's not the point..it's a personal agenda he has about the surface..nothing more, nothing less

Agreed. And that personal agenda has zero to do with Rachel Alexandra. It has to do with defending Curlin's legacy. A horse who was over the top by Breeder's Cup day. The track was the excuse going into last year and it was the excuse coming out of the race. The track had nothing to do with his loss. He made a huge move to get the lead and hit the wall. Horses who dislike track surfaces do not handle it in fits and starts. I never bought Skip Away's "track" excuse after the 1998 Classic. The horse was beaten four lengths and it had to be the track. He was done in by two long hard campaigns that saw him post bullets in 59 of 64 published works.

By Cup day Curlin was not the same horse. All out to beat Past the Point, less than scintillating effort in the JCGC. It's funny, when it's a horse we like (Curlin) it's considered "professional" or "workmanlike". When it's a horse the majority of people on this board have fallen out of favor with (Zenyatta) it's "boring"

I think he should be at Santa Anita with Rachel. Zenyatta notwithstanding.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by Revidere

By Cup day Curlin was not the same horse.

This is the problem with Jackson's sour grapes(and many fans) - Curlin's performance is being judged by his finish position, when in actuality he was compromised by Robbie Albara'duh' while battling two of the world's best horses. It was a extremely strong effort. In spite of the sentiment, Curlin's BCC was actually an indication that Curlin did in fact handle the surface! You simply /can't do that much running on a surface you don't handle. Had he received a world class ride these horses would have dueled late with significantly different energy than what we saw.

Curlin's BCC was arguably his best race of 2008, depending on how you rate his DWC.

I do agree however that some of Curlin's late season efforts were not as impressive as Curlin on cup day or Curlin's better lifetime efforts. Interestingly(well only to a racing-nerd), Curlin's Man O'War turf effort was also highly misconstrued by the public. Red Rocks was able to effectively set an easy pace, well clear of the dueling cheapies. Albaraduh went wider and earlier (foreshadowing the Classic to anyone who would listen). While critics said he hated the turf, he had just run equal to Red Rocks while that rival received his optimum trip. Again counter-indicative of hating the surface.
Curlin almost certainly had a slight preference for dirt, but the deciding factor in the Breeders Cup Classic was not Curlin's preference, rather it was the level of genuine quality in the older handicap division vs the world class intermediate turf stars.


Rachel gives every indication that like most great horses she is versatile enough to run a big race on most surfaces.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

People are very unforgiving of losses.

Can this argument also be made for Zenyatta? It seems like there is a double standard here when she plays it safe, and by no means am I defending her conservative campaign up until the BC.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

People are very unforgiving of losses. Look at how many people (stupidly) point out that she barely held on in the Preakness. Jackson isn't caring about the breeding value - floundering on a surface because you said "why the hell not" isn't going to earn you any extra points.

Look through the list of the Top 100 of all time - how many of those horses were specific to ONE surface. Are any of us thinking any less of them because of it? I sure hope the hell not.

This isnt about surface though. This is about winning the biggest races and beating the best opponents. Why wouldn't you want to see her doing this in the championship? I won't think any less of her if she loses and she has some massive built in excuses anyway for those that would.

Do you think that maybe she could actually win?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

This isnt about surface though. This is about winning the biggest races and beating the best opponents. Why wouldn't you want to see her doing this in the championship? I won't think any less of her if she loses and she has some massive built in excuses anyway for those that would.

Do you think that maybe she could actually win?

What happens if the Third Bird wins tommorow?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

People are very unforgiving of losses. Look at how many people (stupidly) point out that she barely held on in the Preakness. Jackson isn't caring about the breeding value - floundering on a surface because you said "why the hell not" isn't going to earn you any extra points.

Look through the list of the Top 100 of all time - how many of those horses were specific to ONE surface. Are any of us thinking any less of them because of it? I sure hope the hell not.

Who cares what "people" say? She is a mare, she has no real value anyway because he would never sell her.

Looking through the top 100 makes you realize that most werent around when there were multiple surfaces. Hell turf racing in this country didnt become widespread till the 50's. And on that list are some who not only ran on two surfaces but excelled. Like Secretariat, Round Table, John Henry, Dr. Fager are 4 off the top of my head. Asking her to compete on poly is not such a stretch.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Who cares what "people" say? She is a mare, she has no real value anyway because he would never sell her.

Looking through the top 100 makes you realize that most werent around when there were multiple surfaces. Hell turf racing in this country didnt become widespread till the 50's. And on that list are some who not only ran on two surfaces but excelled. Like Secretariat, Round Table, John Henry, Dr. Fager are 4 off the top of my head. Asking her to compete on poly is not such a stretch.

I was harping this tune yesterday and I was quoted on a ref I made on Cigar, then I was reminded she won at Keeneland by DrugS and now she is a bet against in the BC, and she cannot handle the poly. I am confused.