Rachel Alexandra - what would her odds be in the BC Distaff?

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

I never said I wouldn't run her. Nor do I say I agree with the decision not to run her.

But honestly, it does seem as though she has more to lose than to gain running in the Distaff.

I completely disagree. I think she has nothing to lose. I think pretty much everyone concedes she never reached last year's level, so losing again would be further confirmation. If she popped and won, however, it would be quite an achievement.

The decision is being overshadowed by Zenyatta, whom Jess let get in his head a long time ago with this ridiculous schedule. IMO, RA would still have a much better chance at the Distaff than Z has at the Classic.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I completely disagree. I think she has nothing to lose. I think pretty much everyone concedes she never reached last year's level, so losing again would be further confirmation. If she popped and won, however, it would be quite an achievement.

The decision is being overshadowed by Zenyatta, whom Jess let get in his head a long time ago with this ridiculous schedule. IMO, RA would still have a much better chance at the Distaff than Z has at the Classic.

If she wins the Distaff, what race do you harken back to as the fondest memory of her career? The Kentucky Oaks, The Preakness, The Haskell, The Woodward or the Distaff?

My thoughts are they rank:

Woodward
Kentucky Oaks
Preakness
Distaff
Haskell

No matter what she does in the race, her legend has peaked. I don't think she would, but should she get beat, again, it takes just that much more luster off of what she has already accomplished. It's just my opinion, and I am a fan. She gave us a lot of thrills last year, and anyone that was at the Woodward knows they got down to the very bottom that day. I would have bet a lot of money that they would have retired her as HOY.

[Thunder Gulch]

I don't think a loss takes anything away. She was the best 3yo filly I ever saw, so why does losing again change that?

As much as I want to say beating the boys in the Haskell and Woodward were her best, the overwhelming sight of her drawing off by 20 in the Oaks in front of 100,000 people will be the one I never forget. To win that race- at that place- in that manner...

[NTamm1215]

I understand what's been said here but it also illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in the game.

This idea that if a horse loses they're suddenly no good and their accomplishments are tarnished is lunacy. Racing became the game that was easy to fall in love with because people challenged their horses, it was a sport. It didn't matter if you lost. Everyone and their brother knew that Secretariat was not 100% leading up to the Whitney, including Ron Turcotte but there was no way he wasn't going to run. He ran and he lost, but he still had opportunities to restore any lost luster and we don't remember him as the horse that lost the Whitney.

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I don't think a loss takes anything away. She was the best 3yo filly I ever saw, so why does losing again change that?

As much as I want to say beating the boys in the Haskell and Woodward were her best, the overwhelming sight of her drawing off by 20 in the Oaks in front of 100,000 people will be the one I never forget. To win that race- at that place- in that manner...

IMO, it's very close. I guess because I was there for the Woodward, standing just past the finish line at ground level, it is a moment I will never forget.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

someone said this was a winner...but, i don't know. the woodward and the schedule as a 3 yo was a killer for her. i thought she would retire last year. after she lost and they did not run her in the appleblossom ...i thought she would not race again....but, she did and lost a couple more times to horses that could not touch her the year before. so face it, those saying she was 90% are not even close. she is probably like 80% the horse she was. jackson probably came to his senses (unlike the emotional fan base) and said this horse has had enough. i saw the race up here and we felt bad for her after...she ran her guts out. bullet work outs are meaningless if the horse does not have it in the afternoon. i really believe that jackson did the right thing for this horse....even though he was actually late doing it. he was riding the same emotions that all the people that are mad about it are still riding. it was pretty much over after last season.

Let me get this straight....the horse Rachel ran into the ground at Saratoga, just came back to cruise in the Beldame. But Rachel was like 80% of what she was last year? She has had enough? But her fans are the emotional ones?

I'll agree she wasn't as good this year as last. But she was still pretty good this year and her last race might have been her best on the year. If she was up the track I could understand this point of view, but at no point was she not competitive.

It's not about riding any kind of emotions and I'm almost positive Cannon isn't an emotional RA fan. It would appear you are letting your emotions about Zenyatta cloud your judgement. Or you just don't know what you are talking about.

[slotdirt]

I was there for both the Preakness and the Oaks last year - two entirely different kinds of wins - and I'd say the Oaks will always be her career-defining performance.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I understand what's been said here but it also illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in the game.

This idea that if a horse loses they're suddenly no good and their accomplishments are tarnished is lunacy. Racing became the game that was easy to fall in love with because people challenged their horses, it was a sport. It didn't matter if you lost. Everyone and their brother knew that Secretariat was not 100% leading up to the Whitney, including Ron Turcotte but there was no way he wasn't going to run. He ran and he lost, but he still had opportunities to restore any lost luster and we don't remember him as the horse that lost the Whitney.

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

How old is Jess Jackson?

born February 18, 1930 - AGE 80

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

They would come back in some Allowance race or perhaps a G3, where winning was desired but not required to prep for the G1 races. Different game nowadays.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Let me get this straight....the horse Rachel ran into the ground at Saratoga, just came back to cruise in the Beldame. But Rachel was like 80% of what she was last year? She has had enough? But her fans are the emotional ones?

I'll agree she wasn't as good this year as last. But she was still pretty good this year and her last race might have been her best on the year. If she was up the track I could understand this point of view, but at no point was she not competitive.

It's not about riding any kind of emotions and I'm almost positive Cannon isn't an emotional RA fan. It would appear you are letting your emotions about Zenyatta cloud your judgement. Or you just don't know what you are talking about.

i did not even mention zenyatta. she does not even run at saratoga. so, you probably think i don't know what i'm talking about. even though my "job" is pretty much betting. but heres what i see. the horse is giving all she can and LOSING. cruising in the beldame was not a given...the horse that won (life at ten) was in there. another horse that beat rachel was in there. in all reality she could of very well lost again and i think her camp was not willing to allow that. like i said she looked awful running her guts out at saratoga...no, she was not up the track. but she lost to an inferior horse and rachel was walking at the end...i love that horse. for your information, i rented a car in virginia and drove 3 hours to see her win the preakness. why does zenyattta come up every time someone talks about rachel? those are the ones that don't know what they are talking about. by the way i thought rachel deserved horse of the year too.....

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

i did not even mention zenyatta. she does not even run at saratoga. so, you probably think i don't know what i'm talking about. even though my "job" is pretty much betting. but heres what i see. the horse is giving all she can and LOSING. cruising in the beldame was not a given...the horse that won (life at ten) was in there. another horse that beat rachel was in there. in all reality she could of very well lost again and i think her camp was not willing to allow that. like i said she looked awful running her guts out at saratoga...no, she was not up the track. but she lost to an inferior horse and rachel was walking at the end...i love that horse. for your information, i rented a car in virginia and drove 3 hours to see her win the preakness.

She looked awful at Saratoga but the horse she crushed came back to win the Beldame. Get the connection?

Life At Ten also lost to an inferior horse at Saratoga and came back to win. Get the connection?

She was walking at the end because the jockeys rode the race like a match race. She won the match. She just got run down by a longshot, who neither jock thought could beat them. I think Persistantly proved her win in the PE was a fluke with her showing in the Beldame.

The truth is she would have had a very good chance in the Beldame and the Distaff. No shame in running there....except for Jess Jackson.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

She looked awful at Saratoga but the horse she crushed came back to win the Beldame. Get the connection?

Life At Ten also lost to an inferior horse at Saratoga and came back to win. Get the connection?

She was walking at the end because the jockeys rode the race like a match race. She won the match. She just got run down by a longshot, who neither jock thought could beat them. I think Persistantly proved her win in the PE was a fluke with her showing in the Beldame.

The truth is she would have had a very good chance in the Beldame and the Distaff. No shame in running there....except for Jess Jackson.

personally, i think he should of retired her before. thats what i was saying. heres the thing win or lose, what does it prove? the horse has proven greatness. sorry, about the "emotions" comment. i love the horse too. but, i felt she was in trouble after the woodward. just by the number of races i've watched and the long layoff. posted it here months and months ago and got attacked as some sort of zenyatta lover. i just call it like i see it. yes, i did attack some of the rachel "fanatics". because judgment becomes clouded by fandum. i sort of think people are killing the messanger (jackson) for telling them, its over. i don't think he ever wants to see another race like the last one. the connection is, someone might of dueled her into the ground the next time too. do you think they were going to concede the lead after they saw the last race?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

personally, i think he should of retired her before. thats what i was saying. heres the thing win or lose, what does it prove? the horse has proven greatness. sorry, about the "emotions" comment. i love the horse too. but, i felt she was in trouble after the woodward. just by the number of races i've watched and the long layoff. posted it here months and months ago and got attacked as some sort of zenyatta lover. i just call it like i see it. yes, i did attack some of the rachel "fanatics". because judgment becomes clouded by fandum.

See I'm of the opinion that just because there is nothing left to prove, per se, that doesn't mean she should be retired. They aren't raced to prove things are they?

I don't see anything wrong with running as long as she is competitive. She was competitive. She was beat what, less than 2 lengths combined in her three races?

Was there anything left to prove for Cigar in 1996? Probably not, but I'm glad he came back. He wasn't the same horse late in that season, but he ran his eyeballs out in the JCGC and Breeders Cup and didn't disgrace himself at all.

When all is said and done we don't make the decisions, which is probably a good thing. But ego (on both sides) prevented a match up the fans called for, for over a year. And it feels like ego retired Rachel before she had a chance to finish out the year on a track she had one of her defining races.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

Actually, Blame's campaign is not a great example of the problem. Since he returned in a May prep race, he's basically run in all the "championship" races in his division, with the exception of the Woodward. (Even Quality Road ran in races like the Donn, Met Mile, Whitney and Woodward. He just hasn't run enough.) The problem is that the division is weak, not the races in which they have been competing. To me, the poster child for the ridiculousness of the "modern" campaigns is Boys at Tosconova.

About 5 or 6 years ago, we started to see the time between major races stretched out to satisfy the trainers like Pletcher, Frankel and Dutrow that wanted more time between engagements. Great historic races like the Futurity have become "Grade II" in status (or are on the verge of extinction) because today's "top trainers" are apparently incapable of running their horses every 4-5 weeks, let alone the 2-4 weeks that used to be standard. The irony is that, even with the amount of time between the Whitney, Woodward and JCGC lengthened, for example, Pletcher passed on the JCGC with Quality Road. One other implication being that, in the Breeders Cup era, races that used to determine championships such as the JCGC, Champagne and Vosburgh are now viewed by the top trainers as "nothing" races.

Racing's leaders need to seriously rethink the racing calendar and, through the Graded Stakes Committee, reduce significantly the number of Grade I races, thereby creating a limited number of "championship" events without a lot of interference. That's why the Whitney and Alabama have repeatedly produced championship-caliber matchups, while the Travers rarely gets such matchups. Of course, the owners and breeders that sit on that committee and benefit from the over-abundance of graded races are unlikely to do this, as they benefit (from enhanced catalog pages) from the system being the way it is.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

the connection is, someone might of dueled her into the ground the next time too. do you think they were going to concede the lead after they saw the last race?

It's all speculation, but I think she would have rated kindly off the pace, if Fragoso sent like he did.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

I never said I wouldn't run her. Nor do I say I agree with the decision not to run her.

But honestly, it does seem as though she has more to lose than to gain running in the Distaff.

But that is the whole point. That so many in the game feel like there is something to lose by running and potentially losing. In her case in particular, what is there to lose? She probably can't win any year end awards at this point unless she were to do something spectacular like win the Classic or win the Distaff in a romp and come back and wind up her career with a win in the Clark coupled with a stranger winning the Classic. While these scenarios are unlikely, winning the Beldame and Distaff would have been a great ending to a tremendous career. Simply bowing out for no real reason other than owners enormus ego really is not a fitting ending for a horse like her.

The eclipse awards have suddenly become far too important which is ironic considering that the winners are usually quickly forgotten.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I understand what's been said here but it also illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in the game.

This idea that if a horse loses they're suddenly no good and their accomplishments are tarnished is lunacy. Racing became the game that was easy to fall in love with because people challenged their horses, it was a sport. It didn't matter if you lost. Everyone and their brother knew that Secretariat was not 100% leading up to the Whitney, including Ron Turcotte but there was no way he wasn't going to run. He ran and he lost, but he still had opportunities to restore any lost luster and we don't remember him as the horse that lost the Whitney.

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

Very true. And the fact that the competition in the upper levels of the game is so thin makes this even a more disturbing trend.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

I completely agree on the different point but to me the game is less interesting than it has ever been. No rivalries are ever created because in the rare occurance that two top horses meet, the loser almost invariably slinks off to grade 3 land and the winner's connections expect to be coronated. About the closest thing we have to a rivalry is Havre de Grace and Blind Luck.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Actually, Blame's campaign is not a great example of the problem. Since he returned in a May prep race, he's basically run in all the "championship" races in his division, with the exception of the Woodward. (Even Quality Road ran in races like the Donn, Met Mile, Whitney and Woodward. He just hasn't run enough.) The problem is that the division is weak, not the races in which they have been competing. To me, the poster child for the ridiculousness of the "modern" campaigns is Boys at Tosconova.

About 5 or 6 years ago, we started to see the time between major races stretched out to satisfy the trainers like Pletcher, Frankel and Dutrow that wanted more time between engagements. Great historic races like the Futurity have become "Grade II" in status (or are on the verge of extinction) because today's "top trainers" are apparently incapable of running their horses every 4-5 weeks, let alone the 2-4 weeks that used to be standard. The irony is that, even with the amount of time between the Whitney, Woodward and JCGC lengthened, for example, Pletcher passed on the JCGC with Quality Road. One other implication being that, in the Breeders Cup era, races that used to determine championships such as the JCGC, Champagne and Vosburgh are now viewed by the top trainers as "nothing" races.

Racing's leaders need to seriously rethink the racing calendar and, through the Graded Stakes Committee, reduce significantly the number of Grade I races, thereby creating a limited number of "championship" events without a lot of interference. That's why the Whitney and Alabama have repeatedly produced championship-caliber matchups, while the Travers rarely gets such matchups. Of course, the owners and breeders that sit on that committee and benefit from the over-abundance of graded races are unlikely to do this, as they benefit (from enhanced catalog pages) from the system being the way it is.

I understand your point but decreasing the number of graded races wont make horses run more or against each other. The tracks would adjust the schedules and we would still be left with these uninspiring races. The way to fix this issue is to find owners and trainers that are willing to simply run more. The reason that these abbreviated campaigns were accepted was the success of a few trainers who may or not have had an extra edge as well during that period. Naturally the edge isnt widely available but the 'spacing' of races was the circumstantial evidence left along the way. Plus the Breeders Cup which was supposed to be the event that tied all the other events throughout the country together has come to either be the end all of end alls (when the favorites win) or fairly meaningless (when the big horses skip it or lose).