You really should stop stating opinions as fact. He ran against a bias that day, and even if you think it was lingering effects from the TC, THE HORSE WAS BETTER IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER THAN IN THE SPRING. How the hell does his mediocre Haskell negate this?

Street Sense was probably not as sound or as strong as Curlin. Horses like Curlin and Hard Spun are not the norm. They are the exception to the rule. I could go down the list and come up with tons of horses like Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex who were never the same after the Triple Crown. It is a rare individual who can do what Curlin and Hard Spun did.

I wasn't painting you with that brush. I think you've raised debatable issues and made your points. And you may be spot on.

Heh, she isn't MY super filly. But if she won the belmont on top of the Preakness she would go down as the greatest ever. And I am so amazed how many Beyer Speed supporters there are when it comes down to defending yourself in a debate. I loved Rags to Riches but felt jilted when she got injured in that race against Lears Princess and never ran again. Let's keep Rachel around awhile.

Most of what is talked about here are our opinions. The fact is it was 8 weeks until he raced again. The fact is that most opinions by folks more up on this than I believed that his effort was compromised by the grueling nature of running in the triple crown. You have a different opinion which I am sure you expressed loudly when Curlin passed on the Travers that year. I understand why they would want to pass on the Belmont. Whether it is for rest or due to the distance, your guess is as good as mine.

Yeah Personal Ensign's would be second best to Rachel... Go watch her run down Winning Colors and let me know how great Rachel is.....

Yeah, Curlin was so sound he made his debut in February of his three-year-old year and drifted out into the middle of the track in winning it.

The best counter-argument you can come up with is Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex, two horses anyone with a brain knew would probably never race after the Belmont, injury or no?

Wow. If she beat Mine That Bird again and a bunch of Derby washouts, she'd be the greatest ever?

And another terrible comparison in using Rags to Riches. Rags had what, one up the track start as a two-year-old in June? She had plenty of issues that Rachel doesn't have.

RA must have been "fresh" going into the Preakness. :rolleyes:

I guess Mine That Bird now inherits the 'bet-against opportunity of the year' title.. -- I think he will be a big underlay at the Belmont now.

I am shocked;)

i guess she was feeling fresh off two weeks, but has a not so fresh feeling off three...

but yeah, a tidbit of irony in that statement. i guess the belmont is tougher than that brick wall they mentioned the other day.

They may be lucky if 20,000 show up if the weather is bad. The handle will show massive declines from last year.

Rupert, you know I'm usually a big advocate of running them on what today is called 'short rest'. But in this case I tend to agree with you. I think we're more likely to see her in interesting races down the road if she doesn't run in the Belmont.

I don't think Jackson will jump at the chance to retire her prematurely for some minor or phantom injury, either. That would seriously dent his stated goal of producing the next wave of sound thoroughbreds, by way of Curlin and Rachel.

--Dunbar

How do we know what Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex were after the Belmont? We got repeatedly fed lines of bullsh1t so they wouldn't have to run again. Both of them were fine coming out of the TC series, according to those that weren't involved in the protection schemes.

Just because a horse doesn't start as a 2 year old, that doesn't mean the horse is unsound. If I buy a very sound-looking 2 year old at a sale, I know the chances of that horse running as a 2 year old are probably no more than 20-30%. Not because the horse is unsound, but because the horse is bound to come down with some minor issue that will require a little time. You can have a horse that is close to racing in July and if they come down with a shin or something minor that requires 45-60 days at the farm, that horse will not run until January or February of the next year. If you turn a horse out for 2 months, they won't be able to run for 5 months because of the lost training.

I'm sure you are right that Curlin had a minor issue that prevented him from running as a 2 year old. But that hardly means he was an unsound horse. We know quite to the contrary that he was very sound. He was an "iron horse". He lasted all year as a 3 year old and then ran great as a 4 year old.

I don't know how you can say that Smart Jones or Afleet Alex would not have run again if they didn't get hurt. They were absolutley going to run again if they didn't get hurt. I've never heard of any sound 3 year old retiring only half-way through the year. There is this misperception out there that owners and trainers make up stories about their horse being injured. It is just the opposite. They will often lie and claim their horse is sound when in fact the horse is not. A good example was the filly Sweetcatofmine. When she was retired relatively early in her 3 year old year, the owner proclaimed that she was "retiring sound" which was total nonsense. If a horse is going to the breding shed, you certainly don't want people to think that the horse was unsound or that the horse was forced to retire due to injury. All things being equal, most people would rather breed to or buy the yearling of a sound horse than an unsound horse. So you would never want to say that your horse was unsound if it wasn't true.

Guys will downplay injuries and deny injuries. They don't make up stories about horses being injured. Owners don't feel the need to feign injury to justify retiring a horse.

Name me one line of bs that we were fed.

Smarty Jones was retired after a phantom "bone bruising" injury which takes 15-30 days to recover from, if even that. Unfortunately for Three Chimneys and the Chapmans, Dr. Larry Bramledge 'accidentally' blew the lid off their moneygrab by saying that it was something that horses come back from after rest all the time, and doesn't require surgery. If you think I'm sounding bitter, you're right. We were cheated of seeing a potentially GREAT horse for no reason whatsoever. I followed him from his first start ever, is probably my favorite horse of all time, and talked to everyone 'in the know' about it. There was NOTHING wrong with him, other than the normal risks of racing. The thing they were worried about was SJ was never really cut out to be a great sire, and unfortunately for his fans (myself included of course) it's proving to be true as he hasn't even had a US stakes winner yet despite some decent maiden winners.

In comparison from the same year, Stronach had no reason to try to bring back Ghostzapper at 5, as he was already proven to be the best horse of the generation and was a home run as a stallion, yet made the attempt anyways. He actually got hurt and had to be stopped on, but at least we got to see one more dynamite race.

And in no way am I suggesting that this has anything to do with Rachel, because I feel going to the Belmont isn't the right move for her anyways. She deserves a break and will come back to dominate again.

You're not getting her on Belmont day....get over it! Ask Jerry Brown if he thinks she should run.

Freddy,

I'm not going to spend time on this topic because it didn't matter to me one way or another if she ran at Belmont or not. I will mention that it's really pretty remarkable who is in your good graces and who isn't. But demeaning Hal Wiggins is utterly laughable. Put Rachel Alexandra in Asmussen's hands as a two year old and she'd have been retired by now.

Even if Smarty Jones only needed 30 days at the farm, by the time he would have been ready to run again, it would have been November. He would have missed all the good races. He was retiring at the end of the year any way so it was pointless to bring him back. I don't have a problem with an owner retiring a horse at the end of his 3 year old year. It's a business and if you get a big stud deal, sometimes it makes more sense to retire than to run.

From what I have heard, Smarty had more than a bone-bruise. I heard that his cartilage looked terrible on the x-rays and he would not have had many races left in him.

I forgot that Jerry Brown is the one and only omniscient immortal God of horse racing.

You have to be kidding me.

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."

Well, I am sure glad that you are NOT saying "MTB would have been a lock for The Belmont".

First of all, MTB almost certainly does NOT win the Preakness if RA is not in the race--in fact, he probably finishes substanitally worse. HE BEAT MUSKET MAN BY A HALF LENGTH WITH THE BEST PACE SCENARIO HE COULD HAVE REASONABLY EXPECTED. Yes, he had some traffic problems--that is what happens to dead closers. In fact, it happens MORE often to dead closers in fields without a solid pace since the field does not stretch out as much--which is very well may have happened without RA in the Preakness. In short his task would have been MUCH harder with RA out of that race.

I don't expect casual fans to understand that, but I thought posters here might get it. The idea that RA "cost" MTB a chance at the Triple Crown is laughable--in fact, she GAVE him a better chance.

I mean, is the first time some people have ever seen a closer like this? I had a 50-1 future bet on Concern in the BC Classic, but as nice a horse as he turned out to be, I cashed my frigging ticket just as much because of Bertrando as Concern--it is not rocket science at this level.

So, returning to the Belmont, hell yes MTB's connections wanted RA in the race--not because they wanted to "prove" something, but because THEY NEED SOME FRIGGING PACE. They'd prefer cheap garbage on the pace, sure, but they'd take quality pace over no pace any day.

I disagree. I think MTB would have most likely still won the Preakness if RA was not in the race. The pace would have been a little slower but I think MTB would have still won. Without RA in the race, Big Drama probably would have gotten the lead in about :47. I don't see any reason why MTB wouldn't have still won the race.

MTB is certainly at his best coming from well out of it in a race with a fast pace but that's not the only way he can win. In the Derby, the pace wasn't all that fast and he won by almost 7 lengths. I bet if he came from 10 length back that day instead of 18 lengths back, he still wins. He would have probably won by 3 lengths instead of 7 lengths. And as a 2 year old, he won 3 stakes races in a row and he was close to the pace in all of those races. Don't get me wrong, I think he's better when there is a fast pace and he comes from way out of it, but I don't think he's completely one-dimensional. His PPs clearly show that he is versatile.

All that being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see him throw in a clunker in the Belmont. Not so much because of the pace but because he just ran back to back hard races. He's not a very big horse. I would be surprised if he didn't regress quite a bit in the Belmont.

With regard to whether MTB would have had a better shot in the Belmont if RA was in there, I would say it would have depended whether RA fired or not. If she was knocked out from the Preakness and was going to simply show speed and quit, then I agree with you that she would have helped MTB's chances. But assuming that Borel was right that she didn't even handle the track at Pimlico and assuming that she would have run her best in the Belmont, then I think she would have hurt MTB's chances. It's really hard to know how RA would have run coming back in 3 weeks after a very hard race. She would probably have gotten a much better pace scenario in the Belmont than she got in the Preakness. She might have been able to get an easy lead in slow fractions in the Belmont.

Maybe those unsophisticated casual fans understand that Hull would have run in the Preakness had Rachel Alexandra not run... thereby providing as much or more pace pressure through the early and middle portion of the race, giving Mine That Bird every bit of a chance to close into fractions he needs to be successful.

Good stuff, Phil. I remember Bramledge's comments, too.

The other comparison is with Roy Chapman, who, like Jackson, was a very sick man with not much life expectancy. You'd think he'd have liked to see his one big horse keep racing, maybe even as a 4-yr-old. The family was hardly poor. But noooo, off to the breeding shed.

Forgive me, but I like Jackson. On HIS way out he buys a filly to see her run.

--Dunbar

This is ridiculous.

On one thread we have posters cursing NOT running a talented mare and in this one we have posters cursing a filly for an excellent performance.

Rachel Alexandra = The Four Legged Bandit! :rolleyes:

i disagree with your thoughts here. mine that bird, like any potential champ, should be able to take on all comers and beat them. if anthing, it generated more than the normal amount of preakness buzz, which pimlico and md could certainly use.
and no, they don't need to face him again-she won.

The feeling here is the only reason Jackson didn't run her is he knew she wouldn't have won, not because of the competition, freshness factor, or other reasons cited, but with her running style she would have beaten herself.

surely not. it's a moot point anyway-but two races don't make a horse the greatest ever.

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.

That doughty fighter Bold Forbes really didn't stay 12f, but he had so much guts and class that he held on in the final quarter with everything he had and won the Belmont. Was not the same horse again thereafter. He'd won a lot of races at 2 and 3 before his Derby win; as best I recall, he didn't race but once or twice after the Belmont and the best he could do was second in the Vosburgh (which is pretty good, of course, but he couldn't keep on after that. And no, he wasn't retired because he could make more money as a stallion; he didn't have that fancy a pedigree and 30-40 foals/year was the usual in those days.)

I don't like Jess Jackson at all nor do I love his ways. I really don't see anything wrong with buying Rachel and racing her.. Remember the folks who sold this "National Treasure" didn't have a gun to there heads and I assume they weren't in NEED of the money..

As for Hal Wiggins while I am sure he is a lovely man and very good trainer thinking that he is in the league of SA is silly. This is a results based industry and there is really no denying who has had or will continue to have better results.
I kind of think I could have coached the Bulls to at least 1 championship. So Hal won a few games with Michael Jordan and now he is in the HOF.. Sometimes you have to but your personnal biasis for nice people aside and look at the facts..

You don't have to like Ass but you have to respect his success. As for him breaking down 2 year olds.. You get what you pay for the guy gets owners who want HIS program. Win early and well if they don't go forward it happens..

Being that she would be the only Filly to have done that. Yes, those two races would have put her down as the greatest filly ever in most folks books. Maybe not yours but certainly in most people's books.