Finley on Jess...

[smuthg]

I'm sure a few people will puke when they read this article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...ill&id=4153585

[Bobby Fischer]

i wish santa claus owned Rachel instead

[geeker2]

I vow now not to listen to "Down the Stretch"

[freddymo]

The part about Monmouth was OK

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by geeker2

I vow now not to listen to "Down the Stretch"

Why would you have anyway?

Funny how ego is construed as sportsmanship. I guess all the other owners who arent billionaries simply arent sporting enough.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

The part about Monmouth was OK

Even a blind squirrel...

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why would you have anyway?

Funny how ego is construed as sportsmanship. I guess all the other owners who arent billionaries simply arent sporting enough.

He wasn't talking about everyday owners. He was talking about big-time owners who are in the game to make money, as opposed to those who like to see exciting competition on the track which, hopefully, in turn makes the sport more popular to outsiders. Clearly, no one can take issue with owners who take advantage of the chance to earn a buck and a graded stakes win. Earning a buck is no easy task in this sport. But when an owner does something exciting, I think he or she deserves to be applauded. And it seems like that's what Finley was doing.

[sumitas]

No question the Rachel Alexandra entry has added a lot of excitement to the Preakness .

[NTamm1215]

The amount of s.hit Jess Jackson has taken on this board continues to surprise me. Sure, he used quite a bit of hyperbole when it came to Curlin and I'm sure he's got more in store for Rachel Alexandra. But who cares?

Further, Curlin's 4YO campaign was everything that we as fans seem to desire. He ran in the big races, he tried different things and he ended up running in a race that WE wanted to see him in. Now he's doing something with Rachel Alexandra that realistically was a longshot with her prior connections.

What would everyone be saying if Godolphin had purchased Rachel Alexandra? They've really done a great job getting Music Note and Cocoa Beach to the races this year as both are now out until at least mid-June despite having 0 injuries. They took Seventh Street and put her in the blue silks, and have now pushed her next start back to the Ogden Phipps after she came out of her Apple Blossom victory in perfect condition according to Kiaran McLaughlin.

At least we know Jess Jackson is going to run her. And what the hell is with all of the complaints about running her in the Preakness? That was a public workout in the Oaks. Are the same people who complain about horses being prematurely retired or ducking the biggest spots complaining about Jess Jackson owning Rachel Alexandra and running her in the Preakness?

Whether Jackson is talking out of his ass when it comes to breeding stronger and more stamina-oriented horses remains to be seen as well, however, he seems to be one of the few actually talking about it.

It just seems funny to me that Jess Jackson might be the guy that actually does some of the things that racing fans want yet everyone is sickened by him buying Rachel Alexandra.

Happy Mother's Day.

NT

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The amount of s.hit Jess Jackson has taken on this board continues to surprise me. Sure, he used quite a bit of hyperbole when it came to Curlin and I'm sure he's got more in store for Rachel Alexandra. But who cares?

Further, Curlin's 4YO campaign was everything that we as fans seem to desire. He ran in the big races, he tried different things and he ended up running in a race that WE wanted to see him in. Now he's doing something with Rachel Alexandra that realistically was a longshot with her prior connections.

At least we know Jess Jackson is going to run her. And what the hell is with all of the complaints about running her in the Preakness? That was a public workout in the Oaks. Are the same people who complain about horses being prematurely retired or ducking the biggest spots complaining about Jess Jackson owning Rachel Alexandra and running her in the Preakness?

Whether Jackson is talking out of his ass when it comes to breeding stronger and more stamina-oriented horses remains to be seen as well, however, he seems to be one of the few actually talking about it.

It just seems funny to me that Jess Jackson might be the guy that actually does some of the things that racing fans want yet everyone is sickened by him buying Rachel Alexandra.

Happy Mother's Day.

NT

Agree wholeheartedly. Whether you want her in the race or not, it is exciting, and will be exciting. The bottom line is, so many people seem to never be happy and always criticize decisions one way or another - and also, never seem to appreciate the decisions of people for whom money is not a concern.

So be it, if you want.

I am excited to see RA if she runs in the Preakness - Finley had it right - do we really want to see her beating up on 3YO fillies all year...if that is in fact what might happen if she goes to the Acorn?

If she wins by five, you know everyone is gonna be on here saying the track took her home, a strong bias, this crop really isn't that good, etc.

Live and let live. I, for one, am glad to have Jess Jackson around, and I think the sport needs more people like him willing to take some chances. I'm also glad the non-regular-race-watching public will get a chance to be introduced to RA.

[King Glorious]

Amen. I don't get the negative either. It's like everyone on here is holier than thou and decide that they can't like a horse or don't want to see certain things happen because they don't like an owner because he's not the best person. It's horse racing. I couldn't care less about the owner or his personal life. He's giving us what we all want to see. No matter if we thought it was the right decision to run her in the Preakness or not, no matter if we'd have waited til the Belmont or the Travers or never run her against the boys........everyone will be watching the Preakness to see what she does and if she does something even halfway as special as what she did in the Oaks, we'll all be happy that he ran her there. This is what's good for the sport and I'm glad that there are some that do things that are good for the sport and not just for themselves. It's a risky sport and a risky business. It's funny how, in a sport that's based on gambling, people think it's so stupid for owners to take gambles. I wonder how the sport got so far away from the concept of having the best take on the best to see who is the best? That's what he's doing now. Right now, he's got the opportunity. Next month or three months from now, he may not.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Amen. I don't get the negative either. It's like everyone on here is holier than thou and decide that they can't like a horse or don't want to see certain things happen because they don't like an owner because he's not the best person. It's horse racing. I couldn't care less about the owner or his personal life. He's giving us what we all want to see. No matter if we thought it was the right decision to run her in the Preakness or not, no matter if we'd have waited til the Belmont or the Travers or never run her against the boys........everyone will be watching the Preakness to see what she does and if she does something even halfway as special as what she did in the Oaks, we'll all be happy that he ran her there. This is what's good for the sport and I'm glad that there are some that do things that are good for the sport and not just for themselves. It's a risky sport and a risky business. It's funny how, in a sport that's based on gambling, people think it's so stupid for owners to take gambles. I wonder how the sport got so far away from the concept of having the best take on the best to see who is the best? That's what he's doing now. Right now, he's got the opportunity. Next month or three months from now, he may not.

I... agree. Sure, I may have some trainers/owners I favor.. but I'm not 'against' Jackson or assmussen... and I'm glad RA is pointing to the Preakness.. certainly makes the race more intersting in what was becoming a very boring/disappointing triple crown..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

I... agree. Sure, I may have some trainers/owners I favor.. but I'm not 'against' Jackson or assmussen... and I'm glad RA is pointing to the Preakness.. certainly makes the race more intersting in what was becoming a very boring/disappointing triple crown..

i'm not against jackson in that sense, where you root against his horses. BUT, i do have serious issues with asmussen, and do not understand why an owner would select a trainer like him. oh wait...yes, i do understand it. the problem most have with jackson is his assuming a mantle of sportsman, when the simple fact is that curlin would never have run at four unless the ownership issue was hanging over his head. for anyone to pretend otherwise is pure fantasy. he didn't do it to be sporting, or to take care of fans, he did it because he couldn't get a stud deal.
am i glad rachel is pointing to the preakness? absolutely. am i happy to know when she gets to the winners circle about who will be there with her? absolutely not.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The amount of s.hit Jess Jackson has taken on this board continues to surprise me. Sure, he used quite a bit of hyperbole when it came to Curlin and I'm sure he's got more in store for Rachel Alexandra. But who cares?

Further, Curlin's 4YO campaign was everything that we as fans seem to desire. He ran in the big races, he tried different things and he ended up running in a race that WE wanted to see him in. Now he's doing something with Rachel Alexandra that realistically was a longshot with her prior connections.

What would everyone be saying if Godolphin had purchased Rachel Alexandra? They've really done a great job getting Music Note and Cocoa Beach to the races this year as both are now out until at least mid-June despite having 0 injuries. They took Seventh Street and put her in the blue silks, and have now pushed her next start back to the Ogden Phipps after she came out of her Apple Blossom victory in perfect condition according to Kiaran McLaughlin.

At least we know Jess Jackson is going to run her. And what the hell is with all of the complaints about running her in the Preakness? That was a public workout in the Oaks. Are the same people who complain about horses being prematurely retired or ducking the biggest spots complaining about Jess Jackson owning Rachel Alexandra and running her in the Preakness?

Whether Jackson is talking out of his ass when it comes to breeding stronger and more stamina-oriented horses remains to be seen as well, however, he seems to be one of the few actually talking about it.

It just seems funny to me that Jess Jackson might be the guy that actually does some of the things that racing fans want yet everyone is sickened by him buying Rachel Alexandra.

Happy Mother's Day.

NT

[Merlinsky]

They're (Allen, Zayat, Whitney, Jackson, RA's prior owners, etc) gonna keep on with this crap til they're gonna make me wish IEAH had gotten her for $1.2 mil earlier in the year. Seriously? Why would they want to do that to a person? What have I done?

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

I... agree. Sure, I may have some trainers/owners I favor.. but I'm not 'against' Jackson or assmussen... and I'm glad RA is pointing to the Preakness.. certainly makes the race more intersting in what was becoming a very boring/disappointing triple crown..

Mine That Bird's win was "boring" ? I don't think so and the Preakness would be very exciting without Rachel Alexandra just to see if MTB can win again . Sure, she adds to the excitement but she's not the whole story here .

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by smuthg

I'm sure a few people will puke when they read this article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...ill&id=4153585

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...emy&id=4159005

Yeah so Jeremy Plonk wants some attention. Now when he calls horse racing a business not a sport, does that explain why the Oaks wasn't on ESPN and if so, what is it about poker, spelling bees, or pool that make them sports? There's a reason I pay more attention to DT.com, DRF.com, and Bloodhorse.com. I don't say there's not a business aspect to this, and indeed a crucial one, but he's wrong in so many ways about his logic and assumptions, I can't even begin to process it.

Do any of you lovers of horse racing declare yourselves to be business fans? Is the Kentucky Derby the most exciting two minutes in business? I happen to be a sports fan. I say my favorite sport is horse racing. Glad you clarified that I wasn't really a fan of a sport after all. Now what? It's a bit like finding out a tomato is a fruit.

He even goes so far as to imply unsportsmanlike conduct and disloyalty from Calvin because he's getting the season ride on RA from a trainer and owner he really doesn't deal with typically. So you'd get warm fuzzies, Jeremy, if he'd been used regularly by Asmussen before? He had the call on RA long before he got the mount on MTB who I believe he's been on a grand total of 2 times. I'm sorry, it's a no brainer. Lose the mount on her likely forever unless she just won't run for another jockey, or keep her and risk that MTB wasn't going to live up to his Derby run. I would've gone the same way. Not without some discomfort sure, but hey she's RA, MTB is the horse that's so scary he has a practically full Preakness field to deal with. Business is important, it's a pretty big deal sure. The sale of RA for $10 mil isn't one I'd make if she were that special (those are once in a lifetime horses if she lives up to the hype, and you own her) but hey, I get it. That's a LOT of money. No judgment here.

[Cannon Shell]

It is a moronic column in a series of moronic columns from Plonk. His premise makes no sense. Just as his new racing schedule a few months back was incomprehensible this sport/business argument (which side is he on anyway?) is just another way for a writer to complain about horseracing. Between Finley and this guy anyone who gets their racing information via the ESPN website is quite ill-informed.

[Danzig]

If loyalty counts for anything, you stick with the Derby winner.
What Borel did was make a business decision, pure and simple.

those are both from plonks article, and i disagree with both. borel's been on rachels back for months, and has more lof a connection to what he's called the greatest horse he's ever ridden than he would to mine that bird. he's even leaving a shot at the tc to stay with her. that's disloyalty?
as for his argument that it's a business decision, that borel would earn more on the filly-mmmm,no, mine that bird is a gelding-no breeding in his future. chances are he'll still be running (altho i'm not sure where) long after rachel has gone to a second career as broodmare.

[Merlinsky]

Not that I'm comparing Rachel Alexandra to Ruffian, way too early for that so those mentions are a bit premature, but didn't a similar situation happen albeit not in the Triple Crown? She had the same jockey as Foolish Pleasure, Jacinto Vásquez. He opted for the filly when it came time for the match race, correct? Ah the horror, the lack of loyalty. Foolish Pleasure was pretty amazing but for pete's sake this was Ruffian. Earl Sande opened his big mouth about Man O'War being the best horse he'd ridden and lost the mount on Sir Barton too right? Let's not forget the IEAH excuse for chucking Smith off of Stardom Bound...she might meet Zenyatta and God forbid he have a conflict (right like that was the reason but it's what they gave). You pick the horse you think is the best. It's a career decision but you're also hoping to ride "the one"...some equine phenom who's both insanely talented and your racing soulmate. Calvin found one with Rachel and bless him, it's truly rare and special. Most jockeys probably never do.