'Rags' with hairline fracture; '08 possible

[Slewbopper]

Another one bites the dust with a 7 race career.

GRENIG (DRF): Rags to Riches injured; out for the year
http://www.drf.com/news/article/88602.html

[SniperSB23]

They do say non career ending injury but I'm not holding my breath:

http://racing.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=40817

[pointman]

hairline fracture to her front right pastern. They are claiming she may run in 2008.

I hope this is not career ending. They are sending her to Ashford Stud for recovery but she wil probably end up staying there and be bred next season. It would be great to see her race again.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by miles2135

I hope this is not career ending. They are sending her to Ashford Stud for recovery but she wil probably end up staying there and be bred next season. It would be great to see her race again.

let's start a pool as to which stallion she sees.

i'll go with giants causeway.

[Indian Charlie]

my impression watching her race was that she looked like a broken down claimer compared to when i saw any of her previous races.

that she struggled to lose to a horse that struggled against octave, that said a lot to me as well. layoff or not, that race sucked.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

my impression watching her race was that she looked like a broken down claimer compared to when i saw any of her previous races.

that she struggled to lose to a horse that struggled against octave, that said a lot to me as well. layoff or not, that race sucked.

Wow. A broken down claimer? I suppose the 1:47 and 4/5, fast final three furlongs (even with the wind) and good effort from the winner made the Gazelle a pretty good race.

To simply use the generalization that Lear's Princess trading decisions with Octave makes her a below average horse is foolish. Perhaps Lear's Princess liked the return to a one-turn race. Perhaps she is still improving, as she has only a half-dozen career starts.

Rags to Riches looked like a horse coming off a layoff who needed a race. She ran well and was beaten by a horse who was just a bit better on that particular afternoon. But to say she looked like a beaten down claimer even in comparison to her prior starts is quite a stretch in my opinion.

NT

[geeker2]

yeah IC...sure you were not watching the GM race by mistake?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

my impression watching her race was that she looked like a broken down claimer compared to when i saw any of her previous races.

that she struggled to lose to a horse that struggled against octave, that said a lot to me as well. layoff or not, that race sucked.

Lear's Princess is a very talented filly who has been unlucky in many of her races and seems to be getting better with every race. No shame in losing to her.

[nomad]

What a disappointment. Thank you for the news. I hadn't heard.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

What rock do you live under?

Some people have lives... unlike the rest of us here...

[King Glorious]

Lives are so overrated.

[blackthroatedwind]

Tough campaigns obviously can, and often do, wear horses down. The Belmont Stakes, for many horses in history ( less so now ), is the culmination of virtually an entire career of " prep " races. The fact that some horses need rest after that race is not a function of the Belmont whatsoever, it is merely the temporary end of a long and arduous journey.

What is interesting to me is that through the flawed arguments offered by some in this thread we have seen that, in fact, the Belmont has been the springboard for many major stakes over the following 18 months.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Tough campaigns obviously can, and often do, wear horses down. The Belmont Stakes, for many horses in history ( less so now ), is the culmination of virtually an entire career of " prep " races. The fact that some horses need rest after that race is not a function of the Belmont whatsoever, it is merely the temporary end of a long and arduous journey.

What is interesting to me is that through the flawed arguments offered by some in this thread we have seen that, in fact, the Belmont has been the springboard for many major stakes over the following 18 months.

I'll tell u what I think and I'll wait for u to jump all over it but I think part of it is the effort it takes to win the race vs. being an also ran in the race. Take for example the Arc de Triomphe. Most people would be surprised to learn that no Arc winner has ever come over and won the BC Turf. Realizing that only four have tried it (Dancing Brave, Trempolino, Saumarez and Subotica) but it's still never been done. I believe that had one or more of those four won it, trainers wouldn't have stopped even trying. At the same time that they aren't able to complete the double, there have been several Arc also rans (High Chaparral twice, Daylami, In the Wings, Pilsudski, Shirocco) that have found Turf success. Why is that? I believe that the effort it takes to win some of these grueling test like the Arc and the Belmont, coming at the end of campaigns, takes a huge toll and leave horses more vulnerable to injuries.

U may say that the horses coming out of the Belmont may only need a rest. U are probably right. U've probably forgotten more about horse racing than I'll ever learn. But what I do know is that in the past seven years, we've gotten a combined total of six races and three wins post Belmont from the seven winners of the race in the remainder of their 3yo seasons. That's just not good. If it's not the Belmont, something is obviously going wrong these days.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'll tell u what I think and I'll wait for u to jump all over it but I think part of it is the effort it takes to win the race vs. being an also ran in the race. Take for example the Arc de Triomphe. Most people would be surprised to learn that no Arc winner has ever come over and won the BC Turf. Realizing that only four have tried it (Dancing Brave, Trempolino, Saumarez and Subotica) but it's still never been done. I believe that had one or more of those four won it, trainers wouldn't have stopped even trying. At the same time that they aren't able to complete the double, there have been several Arc also rans (High Chaparral twice, Daylami, In the Wings, Pilsudski, Shirocco) that have found Turf success. Why is that? I believe that the effort it takes to win some of these grueling test like the Arc and the Belmont, coming at the end of campaigns, takes a huge toll and leave horses more vulnerable to injuries.

U may say that the horses coming out of the Belmont may only need a rest. U are probably right. U've probably forgotten more about horse racing than I'll ever learn. But what I do know is that in the past seven years, we've gotten a combined total of six races and three wins post Belmont from the seven winners of the race in the remainder of their 3yo seasons. That's just not good. If it's not the Belmont, something is obviously going wrong these days.

well, you have bad belmont winners such as jazil, you have horses such as birdstone who go on to win other big races, and retire to make more money in the shed. you have afleet alex, who just wasn't given the time to race again--his injury was relatively minor, but they tried to rush him back too soon. smarty wasn't injured in the belmont, his issues were described as chronic, and once again the shed beckoned. more to it then just to say this horse did this, and never ran again. why didn't he run again? or why didn't he win again? maybe a bad winner who lucked out by not having the top 3 yo's run?
also, you need to consider a horse past three (IF he makes it that far). there are plenty of reasons why a horse may need an extended break, whether from a grueling spring, or from any number of issues. citation missed his entire four year old season for example. seattle slew didn't run again after his dismal swaps stakes. i doubt the belmont was the cause, but due to the combined efforts of his spring campaign.