Rachel Alexandra Retired

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

The Rachel lovers can say whatever they want defending him, but Jackson (with the equal help of the Mosses) prevented the biggest possible event in our game today from happening. That WAS a race between two soon to be legendary HOF mares in Zenyatta and Rachel. The match-up would have done wonders for the sports popularity and general public opinion, they failed. No fault to either horse (I love both of these champions), but a strong blame should fall on their owners. I said it before in this thread, he doesn't like to lose, the Aga Khan cop out looked like a better alternative to him and that's what just happened.

false.

no "match-up" will make horse racing popular.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

false.

no "match-up" will make horse racing popular.

Chances are it wouldn't but there is no way of knowing because we're stuck with chicken-s.hit owners and trainers at the top level.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

false.

no "match-up" will make horse racing popular.

It would have been quite an event that would have deservedly gotten a whole lot of attention. It really is disgraceful that the two great fillies never met despite the ample opportunities. In an era where 'historic' races are few and far between, it would have been worthy.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It would have been quite an event that would have deservedly gotten a whole lot of attention. It really is disgraceful that the two great fillies never met despite the ample opportunities. In an era where 'historic' races are few and far between, it would have been worthy.

The irony, of course, is that if Shirreffs hadn't sent Zardana to the Fair Grounds, the $5 Million Apple Blossom would have taken place.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The irony, of course, is that if Shirreffs hadn't sent Zardana to the Fair Grounds, the $5 Million Apple Blossom would have taken place.

makes you wonder, doesn't it? if he wanted the faceoff so bad...why send zardana? everyone knew what would happen if rachel lost that day.

[dagolfer33]

Originally Posted by Danzig

makes you wonder, doesn't it? if he wanted the faceoff so bad...why send zardana? everyone knew what would happen if rachel lost that day.

Makes me wonder why they interpreted that race as a "she's not ready" instead of "she needed the race".

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

Makes me wonder why they interpreted that race as a "she's not ready" instead of "she needed the race".

Jackson tried to micro manage RA just the same as the Moss's with Zenyatta.

The problem was that RA didn't want to race anymore.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

The problem was that RA didn't want to race anymore.

Complete and utter bullshit.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

The problem was that RA didn't want to race anymore.

This is ridiculous. Go back and watch the fleur de lis again from this year and then explain to me why it is so much worse than most of her races last year, or how it is evidence that she "didn't want to race."
Just because she won the Oaks by a huge margin last year doesn't mean she ran better in that race than she did this year going 9f at CD. In fact, she basically ran the exact same race again except this year she ran a little bit faster while also carrying a couple of extra pounds.
Clearly she didn't turn in performances this year that were quite on par with what she did in the Haskell and Woodward last year, but her races this year stack up pretty well with what she did last year at Oaklawn, and in the Oaks and Preakness, etc. I think the idea that she fell out of form dramatically this year is completely wrong.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Danzig

makes you wonder, doesn't it? if he wanted the faceoff so bad...why send zardana? everyone knew what would happen if rachel lost that day.

I gathered that that was not his idea. Zardana's owner is the one that wanted to take her on, wasn't he? I always thought Shirreffs would've preferred not to do that. It's not like the Mosses had any say.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Danzig

makes you wonder, doesn't it? if he wanted the faceoff so bad...why send zardana? everyone knew what would happen if rachel lost that day.

i don't think they thought zardana would win. she was a third string "feel out" the competition entry. the real tip off was when they pulled out of the big race. why pull out because you lost the first race back after a long layoff? answer: they knew rachel was not right before everyone else and losing confirmed their fears......look how they picked her schedule after that. a couple of those races were a joke compared to last year. the horse went from taking on any race to special set up races that she lost half of. the race (at monmouth) that set her up for the personal ensign was a disgrace. "oh, we beat a bunch of claimers lets stretch her out to 10 furlongs, in a grade one." the horse probably should of retired months before that! the "faceoff" race that some are crying about would of been a farce if it happened at all this year.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The irony, of course, is that if Shirreffs hadn't sent Zardana to the Fair Grounds, the $5 Million Apple Blossom would have taken place.

He did Jackson a favor by sending Zardana. Jackson did not want to face Zenyatta in April. Jackson declined the Apple Blossom at first before Cella painted him in a corner by moving the race back a week. When Jackson did the calculus, a loss to Zardana after a long layoff would be easier to dismiss than a loss to Zenyatta in her second start back.

The most logical early season targets for Rachel were the La Troienne and the Fleur de Lis. Moss could have had some fun by shipping Zenyatta to CD after the Apple Blossom to await Rachel. Instead she returned to SoCal and all this foolishness about the Rockies started.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It would have been quite an event that would have deservedly gotten a whole lot of attention. It really is disgraceful that the two great fillies never met despite the ample opportunities. In an era where 'historic' races are few and far between, it would have been worthy.

no doubt it would have been a great event and horse racing would have had some attention that day... but it would still have been just one day. I just disagreed with the sentence of hers that I highlighted (The match-up would have done wonders for the sports popularity and general public opinion, they failed.) not her whole post. The two should have met. But it wasnt going to make anything popular, except maybe for 2 minutes. The gambling aspect is the only way this sport can become popular again... these smart marketers at tracks need to figure out how to make that happen.

Both owners are still terrible for never making it happen... I just feel it like it would have satisfied us horse racing junkies, and not too much else.

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

no doubt it would have been a great event and horse racing would have had some attention that day... but it would still have been just one day. I just disagreed with the sentence of hers that I highlighted (The match-up would have done wonders for the sports popularity and general public opinion, they failed.) not her whole post. The two should have met. But it wasnt going to make anything popular, except maybe for 2 minutes. The gambling aspect is the only way this sport can become popular again... these smart marketers at tracks need to figure out how to make that happen.

Both owners are still terrible for never making it happen... I just feel it like it would have satisfied us horse racing junkies, and not too much else.

Are you all so blinded by wagering that you don't realize the way to save this sport is to make it appealing to the youth?!?! The value of a lifelong fan with true passion for the thoroughbred racehorse is much more important to this sports future than anything else. There will always be those interested in solely the gambling aspect of this game, there are those horse lovers that could not care even a little about placing a bet. But the real beauty of it all is that when exciting races happen between THE BEST horses your going to see a little bit of both come out in more than the majority of viewers. NO singular race drastically changes the popularity status of this game (I can see where what I said was read as that), but it is more the accumulation of consistent great rivalries and great races that will bit by bit bring more and more fans out of the woodwork. Without getting the two best horses of this decade to race against each other we are going nowhere but backwards.

[slotdirt]

I just don't understand how anybody could possibly surmise that anything but gambling drives horse racing. That's the way it's been forever in this country, and that's the way it's going to be. Having five year olds run burlap sack races inbetween the fifth and sixth at Laurel on a Thursday is all well and good, but besides buying some soda pop and a funnel cake, what the hell do young folks do for racing besides think horses are pretty and get in the way of the folks who actually spend money?

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I just don't understand how anybody could possibly surmise that anything but gambling drives horse racing. That's the way it's been forever in this country, and that's the way it's going to be. Having five year olds run burlap sack races inbetween the fifth and sixth at Laurel on a Thursday is all well and good, but besides buying some soda pop and a funnel cake, what the hell do young folks do for racing besides think horses are pretty and get in the way of the folks who actually spend money?

My point was that if you spike someone in the 10-18 age groups interest now, that by the time they are an old grump like yourself, they will confidently say that horse racing is their favorite sport. And from ages 18-90 they will also be a helpful part of the handle just like the rest of us.

[slotdirt]

How do you get someone interested in a sport for its stars when the best of the best rarely appear on a racetrack more than four or five times a season? Sounds great in theory, but horse racing for the general populace has permanently been reduced to a three race schedule and then a tiny blip for the "world" championships in October/November. Sad, but true.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by iamthelurker

Are you all so blinded by wagering that you don't realize the way to save this sport is to make it appealing to the youth?!?! The value of a lifelong fan with true passion for the thoroughbred racehorse is much more important to this sports future than anything else. There will always be those interested in solely the gambling aspect of this game, there are those horse lovers that could not care even a little about placing a bet. But the real beauty of it all is that when exciting races happen between THE BEST horses your going to see a little bit of both come out in more than the majority of viewers. NO singular race drastically changes the popularity status of this game (I can see where what I said was read as that), but it is more the accumulation of consistent great rivalries and great races that will bit by bit bring more and more fans out of the woodwork. Without getting the two best horses of this decade to race against each other we are going nowhere but backwards.

I disagree with the bolded. people who watch races and dont wager on them dont hold much value to this sport IMO. Personally, I dont hold value to this sport because I do not wager much. Everyone involved at the race track makes money only one way.. through wagering.

Though you arent going to get an arguement from me about the stupid owners & trainers these days that dont race the horses and dont create rivalries. It would be very good for the excitement of the people involved in the sport, I just question what it will do to bring in more gamblers. I think its a different world now than the 70's.. dont know if rivalries would bring in the new blood. Besides, things arent going to change so even if there are rivalries.. what are two horses running against each other 4 times and then retiring going to do for anyone?

Showing people that they can make money from this sport is the best way to grow popularity IMO. There are TONS of people out there who love to gamble... poker, sports betting, etc. We somehow need to get their attention. I think that once those action junkies could visit a race track live a few times.. it would create so much new blood. How do we get them to come to the track?

[iamthelurker]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I disagree with the bolded. people who watch races and dont wager on them dont hold much value to this sport IMO. Personally, I dont hold value to this sport because I do not wager much. Everyone involved at the race track makes money only one way.. through wagering.

Though you arent going to get an arguement from me about the stupid owners & trainers these days that dont race the horses and dont create rivalries. It would be very good for the excitement of the people involved in the sport, I just question what it will do to bring in more gamblers. I think its a different world now than the 70's.. dont know if rivalries would bring in the new blood. Besides, things arent going to change so even if there are rivalries.. what are two horses running against each other 4 times and then retiring going to do for anyone?

Showing people that they can make money from this sport is the best way to grow popularity IMO. There are TONS of people out there who love to gamble... poker, sports betting, etc. We somehow need to get their attention. I think that once those action junkies could visit a race track live a few times.. it would create so much new blood. How do we get them to come to the track?

Well I hate to say it but you can't make serious money playing horses unless your very very talented. The REAL action junkies your talking about know that they have a better chance winning at poker, sports betting, etc.

I also think that having tracks change the way they operate would be much harder to pull off than getting a bunch of big egos to realize they are missing opportunities to not only help the sport but create history.

Though, after writing that I have slots debby downer voice (im guessing what he sounds like) in my head saying none of it can be done, either route. But hey, whats wrong with at least trying.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I disagree with the bolded. people who watch races and dont wager on them dont hold much value to this sport IMO. Personally, I dont hold value to this sport because I do not wager much. Everyone involved at the race track makes money only one way.. through wagering.

But they may become involved in the business in other ways, perhaps as owners. I don't want to turn the discussion into the value of owners versus the value of bettors to the business. Suffice it to say, horse racing could not survive without either.