Jackson passes on Belmont with Rachel Alexandra

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by philcski

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.

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.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by asudevil

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

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

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

A Belmont victory would stamp her as the greatest filly of all time in most fan's books. A place she may get to anyway.

You have to be kidding me.

[letswastemoney]

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."

[tector]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by tector

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.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by tector

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.

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.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by philcski

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.

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

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

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."

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!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

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."

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.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Anyone find anything incongruous in this Jacksonian jewel?

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

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.

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

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Huh? What's wild or crazy about it?

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.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As you said, there have been some great horses such as Curlin that ran well in all three legs of the Triple Crown and then were still able to run some more great races later in the year. But there aren't many horses that can do that.

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.)

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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.

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..

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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

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.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Are most fans morons, or just not old enough to have seen Ruffian, for openers, race?

I'll go out on a limb and declare that no serious, educated racing fan older than 40 or 45 would consider her the greatest female of all-time were she to have won the Belmont Stakes this year.

I'm not saying that it would not have been a monumental achievement, but lets keep our historical perspective.

This whole thread has become a bit silly. We don't have an "OUR historical perspective". We have our own.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

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.

who would these 'most people' be? i would think most racing fans who follow the sport would know better. i would expect non-racing fans to not even know who rachel alexandra is-perhaps they would guess she was a russian czarina?

genuine risk remains the best filly in the spring classics, and she's not even the best filly all time.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

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.

Certainly?

Who knew that you speak for " most people? "