Jackson passes on Belmont with Rachel Alexandra

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's just common sense in my opinion. She just ran a really hard race against the boys on only two weeks rest. To bring her back in 3 weeks and ask her to run 1 1/2 miles would simply be asking too much. I can't tell you for sure that she wouldn't win, but I think there is a high probability that it would totally knock her out and then she probably wouldn't be able to run for a few months. The risk/reward of running her in the Belmont simply is not there IMO.

Yep, she could run but then you wouldn't see her again until maybe October. A little rest now will save her for an exciting campaign. The Haskel, Travers? Man, how exciting would that be.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by tector

If she stays healthy and is on form she will run against boys again, or Zenyatta, or both, so just chill.

And to "ateamstupid" who asked:



If Jess Jackson tells me it is in her best interest not to run, then a fortiori just about anyone else can say the same thing with a HIGH level of confidence.

Awesome, keep on accepting what trainers and owners say as gospel. The horse has absolutely no soundness issues and there aren't any big races on the horizon for months. She's got plenty of foundation and I don't understand why everyone's so quick to say "this is in the best interest of the horse" as if they're in her phucking barn. I think they don't believe she can go 12 furlongs and would've been passed by Mine That Bird if the Preakness were 1/16th longer. I'm not stating that as fact though, like some of the "doing right by the horse" experts.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Yep, she could run but then you wouldn't see her again until maybe October. A little rest now will save her for an exciting campaign. The Haskel, Travers? Man, how exciting would that be.

Why? Why would one more race knock her out until October? This is ridiculous. How the hell do you say this with any certainty? No one gives a flying crap about the Haskell and Travers in the mainstream. We're all so damn excited when the Preakness ratings are up, then when they duck the last remaining nationally important race with the sound horse who brought those ratings, we applaud. This is ridiculous.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Kasept

"Since March 14, Rachel has won four graded races with just two weeks rest between her last two victories. We will always put her long-term well being first. And, of course, we want to run her when she is fresh".

Anyone find anything incongruous in this Jacksonian jewel?

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Why? Why would one more race knock her out until October? This is ridiculous. How the hell do you say this with any certainty? No one gives a flying crap about the Haskell and Travers in the mainstream. We're all so damn excited when the Preakness ratings are up, then when they duck the last remaining nationally important race with the sound horse who brought those ratings, we applaud. This is ridiculous.

I know it does sound ridiculous but if you talk to enough trainers they will tell you the same thing. The series takes alot out of horses who are bred fragile anyway. Besides, she was dead on her feet in the win circle at the Preakness. It is the right decision for the horse and if it wasn't for Jackson, would have been made last week.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Awesome, keep on accepting what trainers and owners say as gospel. The horse has absolutely no soundness issues and there aren't any big races on the horizon for months. She's got plenty of foundation and I don't understand why everyone's so quick to say "this is in the best interest of the horse" as if they're in her phucking barn. I think they don't believe she can go 12 furlongs and would've been passed by Mine That Bird if the Preakness were 1/16th longer. I'm not stating that as fact though, like some of the "doing right by the horse" experts.

Thanks for taking the "aptly named" out by the way braveheart

You are right. The distance is a question mark. And you are right that she was getting tired in the Preakness and might have gotten beat had the race been 1 1/4 miles. When you consider those things, why in the world would they want to bring the horse back in 3 weeks running 1 1/2 miles? How would that be in the horse's best interest?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

I know it does sound ridiculous but if you talk to enough trainers they will tell you the same thing. The series takes alot out of horses who are bred fragile anyway. Besides, she was dead on her feet in the win circle at the Preakness. It is the right decision for the horse and if it wasn't for Jackson, would have been made last week.

It clearly took a hell of a lot out of Curlin and Hard Spun two years back. They were never seen again, except for those 4 more combined graded stakes victories and 3 Grade I's in the summer and fall and 1-2 finish in the BC Classic.

[hurricanefrank]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

We're all so damn excited when the Preakness ratings are up, then when they duck the last remaining nationally important race with the sound horse who brought those ratings, we applaud. This is ridiculous.

How do you know she is sound?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are right. The distance is a question mark. And you are right that she was getting tired in the Preakness and might have gotten beat had the race been 1 1/4 miles. When you consider those things, why in the world would they want to bring the horse back in 3 weeks running 1 1/2 miles? How would that be in the horse's best interest?

Sorry, but I usually take "the horse's best interest" to be referring to health. I doubt Rachel cares if she loses at the Belmont, so if she's sound and they're just ducking, I don't want to hear this "long-term health" nonsense.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Anyone find anything incongruous in this Jacksonian jewel?

Steve she jogged in the Preakness..What did the guy do wrong? He bought the filly, raced her in the second leg of the triple crown, and then was smart enough to give her a break.. The guy is sick and isn't long for this world maybe you should give the guy a break all he does is race horses.. He had Curlin try the grass in the hopes that he would be good enough to race in the Arc, when he wasn't he changed gears.. I get the fact you dis like his ways but in all cander the guy does what so many don't.. He races his horses.. Let him die in peace and let him race her a few more times under the advisement of Ass.. Filly is in WAY better hands today then with the mighty Hal Wiggins..

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by hurricanefrank

How do you know she is sound?

Because she's had two full campaigns so far and because there haven't been any reports whatsoever of soundness issues and because that's not the king of thing owners/trainers are shy about divulging?

[booner]

He paid $10 million for her. He can do whatever he wants. It's his filly.

I really would have liked to see her run in the Belmont. Now that she isn't, I'll just have to wait for her next start (if there is one).

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Sorry, but I usually take "the horse's best interest" to be referring to health. I doubt Rachel cares if she loses at the Belmont, so if she's sound and they're just ducking, I don't want to hear this "long-term health" nonsense.

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. There have been far more horses that were either never the same or who needed a long rest to recover. And most trainers know this. That is why they didn't run Street Sense in the Belmont. They knew there was a high probability that it would knock him out, so they decided to skip the race.

[hurricanefrank]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Because she's had two full campaigns so far and because there haven't been any reports whatsoever of soundness issues and because that's not the king of thing owners/trainers are shy about divulging?

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Jackson took alot of heat for running her in the Preakness off two weeks rest. You know he'd be a bullseye for mucho criticism if he were to admit openly that she came out of the race with an issue. I hope it's just a matter of fatigue and that we'll see her down the road. In my opinion many Jackson haters are objectivity-challenged when it comes to Rachel Alexandra.

[ateamstupid]

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. There have been far more horses that were either never the same or who needed a long rest to recover. And most trainers know this. That is why they didn't run Street Sense in the Belmont. They knew there was a high probability that it would knock him out, so they decided to skip the race.

Why would it have knocked out Street Sense if it didn't knock out Curlin and Hard Spun? Street Sense was trashed by those two later in the year, so who really was "knocked out"? Like I said, if you're ducking, say so. If the horse has no soudness issues, don't give me "long-term health" as your reason. It's hollow, and I'm surprised so many people not connected to the horse blindly nod along with it.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It clearly took a hell of a lot out of Curlin and Hard Spun two years back. They were never seen again, except for those 4 more combined graded stakes victories and 3 Grade I's in the summer and fall and 1-2 finish in the BC Classic.

Curlin's effort in the Haskel was his dullest effort all year. He rebounded with a sound effort in the jockey cup gold cup against Lawyer Ron. But his dull effort had to do with his difficulty rebounding from that triple crown series. Now Rachel may be able to handle it better than Curlin because she has alot more bottom to her than Curlin. She raced 6 times as a two year old. However, if Jackson could see a way to run her and win, he would obviously do it. 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. Hard Spun still amazes me. I still can't see how a horse could run those fractions for so friggin long.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Curlin's effort in the Haskel was his dullest effort all year. He rebounded with a sound effort in the jockey cup gold cup against Lawyer Ron. But his dull effort had to do with his difficulty rebounding from that triple crown series. Now Rachel may be able to handle it better than Curlin because she has alot more bottom to her than Curlin. She raced 6 times as a two year old. However, if Jackson could see a way to run her and win, he would obviously do it. 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. Hard Spun still amazes me. I still can't see how a horse could run those fractions for so friggin long.

I am not sure she is better then Rag too Riches

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Curlin's effort in the Haskel was his dullest effort all year. He rebounded with a sound effort in the jockey cup gold cup against Lawyer Ron. But his dull effort had to do with his difficulty rebounding from that triple crown series. Now Rachel may be able to handle it better than Curlin because she has alot more bottom to her than Curlin. She raced 6 times as a two year old. However, if Jackson could see a way to run her and win, he would obviously do it. 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. Hard Spun still amazes me. I still can't see how a horse could run those fractions for so friggin long.

Your Super filly while wonderful has never run a 110 beyer

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by hurricanefrank

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Jackson took alot of heat for running her in the Preakness off two weeks rest. You know he'd be a bullseye for mucho criticism if he were to admit openly that she came out of the race with an issue. I hope it's just a matter of fatigue and that we'll see her down the road. In my opinion many Jackson haters are objectivity-challenged when it comes to Rachel Alexandra.

I'm not a Jackson hater, if you'll read the other thread started by Ogygian, I strongly defended him. I just don't buy the long-term health explanation as quickly as others.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Why would it have knocked out Street Sense if it didn't knock out Curlin and Hard Spun? Street Sense was trashed by those two later in the year, so who really was "knocked out"? Like I said, if you're ducking, say so. If the horse has no soudness issues, don't give me "long-term health" as your reason. It's hollow, and I'm surprised so many people not connected to the horse blindly nod along with it.

Hard Spun would have buried Rachel