Jackson passes on Belmont with Rachel Alexandra

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

You can make excuses for any or all of them. Fluke injuries, fake injuries, whatever. The facts are that all of those that I named didn't finish their 3yo seasons. Running one or two more races is not finishing it. Big Brown, Bluegrass Cat, Empire Maker, Rags, and Point Given all came back after the Belmont but they didn't finish their seasons.

They're not excuses. They're extremely important circumstances you have to consider. You can't just rattle off names and completely ignore the value or previous health of the horse when attempting to use "they didn't finish their seasons!" as a knockout blow to running in two TC races. It's ridiculous.

[Danzig]

the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.

Thank you, well said.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.

Super post, Danzig.

--Dunbar

[Danzig]

thanks ateam and dunbar. just proves the adage that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the only way to really nip this argument in the bud is for someone to go thru and make a list of every horse than ran in the classics, and then look at what every one of them did after. producing a short list of horses, presumably the ones who did the best in the races, and then using their prematurely ending careers in no way proves anything-except that most of them, due to wins in the classics, were far more in demand for breeding. when outrageous sums of money are about to change hands, i would not in the least be surprised at any early, and lucrative retirement.
i think some are confusing success in the classics with suffering injuries in the classics. there's a huge difference between risking a horse in a race, and a horse being unable to race.

I would agree with you that horses who retired sound due to stud deals should obviously not be mentioned on lists of horses that the Triple Crown ruined. But there are plenty of horses that the TC knocked out that were never the same again. There is no doubt that the Triple Crown is grueling. There isn't a single trainer that would dispute that. The only question is whether the TC is so grueling that it causes irreperable damage. I would say that in some cases it does and in some cases it doesn't. It depends on the horse.

[Danzig]

but in many cases i believe that horses who suffer an injury and subsequently retire only do so because of successes in the t.c. races which would then warrant a better stud deal. many times it is admitted that a horse could come back from an injury-but 'we were going to retire him, so there's no point'. or there's 'he wouldn't make the bc, so there's no point'. either way, the horse was done at three. or maybe a horse seems just a bit off, so they retire rather than risk a loss-same excuse given. something isnt quite right in their mind, so they don't want to risk it.

[Danzig]

but in many cases i believe that horses who suffer an injury and subsequently retire only do so because of successes in the t.c. races which would then warrant a better stud deal. many times it is admitted that a horse could come back from an injury-but 'we were going to retire him, so there's no point'. or there's 'he wouldn't make the bc, so there's no point'. either way, the horse was done at three. or maybe a horse seems just a bit off, so they retire rather than risk a loss-same excuse given. something isnt quite right in their mind, so they don't want to risk it.

i think when people say phantom injury-it's possible their belief is that something minor is made out to be something that would force retirement, and in many cases it just isn't that serious. but we also know that horses can be injured and not come back as well-again, as i said above, it has to do with risk.
as for grueling- i don't know that the tc is any more gruelling than any series of races. horses are injured after running a series before getting to the t.c.-old fashioned for example. the progression from 6/7 f to 1 1/8 can be just as demanding for these horses.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but in many cases i believe that horses who suffer an injury and subsequently retire only do so because of successes in the t.c. races which would then warrant a better stud deal. many times it is admitted that a horse could come back from an injury-but 'we were going to retire him, so there's no point'. or there's 'he wouldn't make the bc, so there's no point'. either way, the horse was done at three. or maybe a horse seems just a bit off, so they retire rather than risk a loss-same excuse given. something isnt quite right in their mind, so they don't want to risk it.

i think when people say phantom injury-it's possible their belief is that something minor is made out to be something that would force retirement, and in many cases it just isn't that serious. but we also know that horses can be injured and not come back as well-again, as i said above, it has to do with risk.
as for grueling- i don't know that the tc is any more gruelling than any series of races. horses are injured after running a series before getting to the t.c.-old fashioned for example. the progression from 6/7 f to 1 1/8 can be just as demanding for these horses.

You don't know if the TC is more grueling than other series of races? Is there another series of races that even comes close to the TC in terms of being demanding on the horse? They run 3 times in 5 weeks and finish with a 1 1/2 mile race. And the horses aren't even fully mature yet. There's no other series of races that even comes close to that.