A couple of years ago, Coolmore had Ravel and Rags to Riches. They decided not to run Rags in the SA Derby and instead sent Ravel there. The owners of Zenyatta don't want to run her against the boys in the big races and I'd assume that them having Tiago for those races plays at least some part in their decision. While I do understand it from the business side, the sporting side of me says that if you have a race you want to win, you take your best chance to win it. Rachel may be odds on for the Oaks and very likely to win it but she's also got a good shot to do something special in the Derby. Why not take a shot? If she loses, why can't she come back to her own division in all the big races in NY this summer? People act like losing the Derby is the end of the world. It's not. And if she wouldn't even have to win the Derby. Even finishing 2nd or 3rd would greatly increase the respect she'd get. Look at Eight Belles last year. And if she were to win the race......it would be historic. You don't get many chances to make history. If she were a colt that was looking at being the 6th or 7th choice, nobody would hesitate to say that he should be going instead of skipping the race to be odds on in the Derby Trial or the Withers or the Peter Pan. Only one horse will win the Derby and nobody is worried that the 19 that lose will be ruined. Go for it.
__________________
The real horses of the year (1986-2020)
Manila, Java Gold, Alysheba, Sunday Silence, Go for Wand, In Excess, Paseana, Kotashaan, Holy Bull, Cigar, Alphabet Soup, Formal Gold, Skip Away, Artax, Tiznow, Point Given, Azeri, Candy Ride, Smarty Jones, Ghostzapper, Invasor, Curlin, Zenyatta, Zenyatta, Goldikova, Havre de Grace, Wise Dan, Wise Dan, California Chrome, American Pharoah, Arrogate, Gun Runner, Accelerate, Maximum Security, Gamine
|
04-06-2009, 10:59 AM
Threaded Mode