Summer Bird pointed for The BC

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Maybe Lezcano thought that, if Commentator got away with an easy lead (see 2008 Whitney), he'd have no chance to beat him, so he took the race to him. It didn't work out.

So to be "fair," we have to let speed horses have easy leads. Are these set-ups "fair" to closers?

There was already a horse in Tizway taking on Commentator. Lezcano had no reason to push them on Smooth Air. He could have had a perfect trip behind them but instead was so hellbent on destroying Commentator that he killed his own mount as well.

I can only speak for myself but a "fair" race to me is when everyone has a chance. The pace isn't too hot that it is virtually impossible for speed to hold on and isn't too slow that it is virtually impossible to come from off the pace.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

There was already a horse in Tizway taking on Commentator. Lezcano had no reason to push them on Smooth Air. He could have had a perfect trip behind them but instead was so hellbent on destroying Commentator that he killed his own mount as well.

I can only speak for myself but a "fair" race to me is when everyone has a chance. The pace isn't too hot that it is virtually impossible for speed to hold on and isn't too slow that it is virtually impossible to come from off the pace.

Tizway is a NW2X allowance horse that had never competed in a stakes race. Lezcano could not necessarily rely upon Tizway to "soften" Commentator up.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Tizway is a NW2X allowance horse that had never competed in a stakes race. Lezcano could not necessarily rely upon Tizway to "soften" Commentator up.

Crafty Player and Show Boot were claimers and they had no problem softening Commentator up and that was in his prime. You don't need to be a top level horse to soften a horse up in a 9 furlong race. You just need to be able to run 6 furlongs in 1:10 which Tizway is capable of doing.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I keep reading how no one could beat Rachel in a "square race"? What is that? If the older males challenge her and the early fractions in the Woodward are fast (say, 46.1, 1:10), would that be an "unfair" race?

By the way, those were the fractions from the Whitney, which were considerably faster than those set in the Preakness, and no one suggested that the 8YO Commentator had been unfairly treated.

That wouldnt be an excuse in my opinion. If she is rank and gets burned up in a speed duel and she loses... then she just loses no excuses.

I believe that she has the ability to sit off the pace and run her race. She's done that her past two races.. not far off the pace but she wasnt in the lead.

The example above is a square race IMO. She doesnt need everything to go in her favor to win, she's proven that too.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

There was already a horse in Tizway taking on Commentator. Lezcano had no reason to push them on Smooth Air. He could have had a perfect trip behind them but instead was so hellbent on destroying Commentator that he killed his own mount as well.

I can only speak for myself but a "fair" race to me is when everyone has a chance. The pace isn't too hot that it is virtually impossible for speed to hold on and isn't too slow that it is virtually impossible to come from off the pace.

a great horse like Rachel should be able to handle obstacles in her path, like the bolded. there are no excuses like "the pace was too fast". Well lay off the pace then!

for me her real excuses would be.. taken real wide by a jockey around a turn on purpose - Genuine Risk Preakness type stuff - being boxed in with no chance - Touch Gold Preakness & Kittens Joy BC Turf type stuff - horses bump the hell outta her - or her dumb jockey starts celebrating and falls off before the wire.

Those are her only excuses in my opinion.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

a great horse like Rachel should be able to handle obstacles in her path, like the bolded. there are no excuses like "the pace was too fast". Well lay off the pace then!

for me her real excuses would be.. taken real wide by a jockey around a turn on purpose - Genuine Risk Preakness type stuff - being boxed in with no chance - Touch Gold Preakness & Kittens Joy BC Turf type stuff - horses bump the hell outta her - or her dumb jockey starts celebrating and falls off before the wire.

Those are her only excuses in my opinion.

I was just stating what I consider a fair race to be. The horses that are really good and great are the ones that can overcome a race that may be biased against their style and still win. Rachel has proven she can do that twice already.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Crafty Player and Show Boot were claimers and they had no problem softening Commentator up and that was in his prime. You don't need to be a top level horse to soften a horse up in a 9 furlong race. You just need to be able to run 6 furlongs in 1:10 which Tizway is capable of doing.

But there's a big difference between two rabbits who tag-teamed Commentator to the sole benefit of Saint Liam and really had no thoughts of winning the race. This is speculation but Jimmy Bond likely put Tizway in the Whitney to win the race, not to soften Commentator up for Smooth Air or any of the others in the race.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Jackson loved Curlin thinks we was g-ds gift to racing. He watched his all time great lose on Pro Ride so he figures that he can't bear to watch Rachel lose on it. Plus he likes making grand statements and what better a time and place to get his message across..Of course , it is self serving and off color but it is his right to express himself. He ponied up the 6 to 10mil(u hear so many people who KNOW the price) Basically in comes down to this "in his club he can splash the pot whenever the FCUK he wants" (per TEDDY KGB in Rounders).

I can understand why he would probably have bad memories from last year, whether one believes that Curlin didn't like pro ride or not, I thought Albarado moved on him far too early, racing as he were riding on dirt, it was no surprise he was caught late. Numbers wise it was about on par with a Curlin type race, I believe he was actually starting to lose it 2 races prior to the Classic that started with the turf experiment and the result would have been the same on pro ride or dirt.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'm sure they arent scared of running her in the BC.

The answer is really simple. The owner of said horse hates artificial surfaces. He calls them plastic in interviews. He did not want to run his superstar horse on plastic last year, gave in, and probably was not happy with the results. He doesnt want to run her on plastic.

I'd blame Rachel not being in the BC on the Breeders Cup idiots more than Jackson. If the race was at another track like Churchill, Gulfstream, Belmont, Oaklawn, the Fairgrounds, etc... I would be surprised if she DIDNT show up. She's not ducking out of the Breeders Cup.. its extremely obvious he is not afraid of runner her in ANY spot. her owner is taking a stand against plastic.. and I dont blame him.

We'll just have to see how this shakes out after The Woodward, whether that's the Beldame or the JCGC or even the BC. As long as it is a race that can challenge her I'm for it.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by CSC

We'll just have to see how this shakes out after The Woodward, whether that's the Beldame or the JCGC or even the BC. As long as it is a race that can challenge her I'm for it.

This will be her 11th race in 11 months. If the filly comes back tired he should be under no obligation to run her again this year. If she comes back fine then I hope he runs her one more time.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by CSC

I don't think so...

Clearly.

I think that is evident to everyone but smooth operator.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by jms62

If the race is at distance and at a Track having a bias that heavily favors RA you are right. Any other Distance / Track it is a moot point becuase RA won't be there. She is being managed not to ever be put in a situation that isn't heavily tilted in her favor. This won't be lost on those voting for HOY.

Do you mean like Oaklawn, Fairgrounds, Churchill, Pimlico, Belmont, Monmouth and Saratoga?

Or do you mean more like Hollywood Park and Del Mar only?

I think one of us is confused.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Did you watch the Preakness?

This is classic, and worth noting as conversations like this always remind me of the big talk we had here a couple years ago about Sun King and Invasor....like "oh but he only beat Sun King by a nose!!!!!!OMGZ!!11!!" type comments.

Look, I'm no genius and no gift to racing by any stretch, but lots more people need to start learning that a "troubled" trip can occur even when a horse visually gets into no "trouble" at all. You don't need a check or a stumble or a poor start to have a troubled trip. Invasor beat Sun King by a nose when racing totally out of his element, and it was one of his more impressive career races -- just like Rachel's Preakness is IMO her best race, because she had the most brutal trip of her life and still held off the Derby winner when the race set up for him to take it so easily. Everything was in his favor that day and nothing was in hers....and she still won.

She is that good, and it's not always an "easy trip" just because a horse was pressing and has smooth sailing. Not at all, and that's the nuance in conversations like this that are lost on far too many folks -- if they can't *see* trouble, then it was an easy trip.

Handicapping 301 stuff, I know, so perhaps Drugs needs to get through 101 before we can get to that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by CSC

Which may mean she is only a great filly on dirt, she's one dimensional. Like it or not Zenyatta has won on both surfaces, Careless Jewel has won on both also or atleast shown she can handle both. In this instance they are superior to her unless she can prove she can win on Poly also. Brilliant probably not as her...but certainly more versatile which to me is also a factor in determining a great horse.

how can a horse who can win from on the lead, or off the pace, on a fast, good or sloppy track, be called one dimensional? i know you and a few others are on some sort of crusade to find a horse that's better than the filly, but this is really getting ridiculous- as is the bitching about the races she's been entered, with folks claiming the 'easy' way is being taken with rachel, when in fact she's run more races, and at more tracks, than just about any horse running in top competition-if not all of them. this whole discussion is becoming ridiculous.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Danzig

how can a horse who can win from on the lead, or off the pace, on a fast, good or sloppy track, be called one dimensional? i know you and a few others are on some sort of crusade to find a horse that's better than the filly, but this is really getting ridiculous- as is the bitching about the races she's been entered, with folks claiming the 'easy' way is being taken with rachel, when in fact she's run more races, and at more tracks, than just about any horse running in top competition-if not all of them. this whole discussion is becoming ridiculous.

I'm glad you asked that Danizg, I was in a hurry posting this afternoon and I may have been misunderstood.

Let me start in saying RA is a fantastic horse, when I referred to one dimensional I didn't mean her running style, in which she has shown a high crusing speed and the ability to kick on. Really I haven't seen many horses that have this innate ability. It's a special talent.

What I was referring to was she hasn't shown the dimension to win on Synth(other than a non stks Keeneland race) as she has on dirt. Until she does this is what I mean't by one dimensional. Like it or not we are in a new age of racing on 3 surfaces. I don't expect all horses to be great on both turf and dirt when Cigar was mentioned in comparison to RA, it is true he was no great shakes on turf, but it was somewhat an unfair comment to criticize him in the same vein as I critiqued RA since there was no poly around when he raced why should he be held accountable for this?

The fact is we are in a new age of racing and horses may have to adapt to both poly and dirt to be considered great, which explains my assertion that atleast Zenyatta has shown she can win on both. So when I said superior I only mean't she was superior in this way, not that she was a better horse.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm glad you asked that Danizg, I was in a hurry posting this afternoon and I may have been misunderstood.

Let me start in saying RA is a fantastic horse, when I referred to one dimensional I didn't mean her running style, in which she has shown a high crusing speed and the ability to kick on. Really I haven't seen many horses that have this innate ability. It's a special talent.

What I was referring to was she hasn't shown the dimension to win on Synth(other than a non stks Keeneland race) as she has on dirt. Until she does this is what I mean't by one dimensional. Like it or not we are in a new age of racing on 3 surfaces. I don't expect all horses to be great on both turf and dirt when Cigar was mentioned in comparison to RA, it is true he was no great shakes on turf, but it was somewhat an unfair comment to criticize him in the same vein as I critiqued RA since there was no poly around when he raced why should he be held accountable for this?

The fact is we are in a new age of racing and horses may have to adapt to both poly and dirt to be considered great, which explains my assertion that atleast Zenyatta has shown she can win on both. So when I said superior I only mean't she was superior in this way, not that she was a better horse.

zenyatta won once on dirt, rachel once on poly. so, i don't quite get your 'atleast Zenyatta has shown she can win on both' statement, since you seem to completely ignore the fact that rachel has the same 1/1 record on polycrap that zen has on dirt.

if you don't think a main track horse has to run on turf, why would you think a poly horse has to run on dirt, or vice versa? dirt is not synonomous with poly by any means. the fact that rachel can win on any type of dirt track, fast, good, sloppy, and at a multitude of tracks, in a variety of ways, should show you all the dimensions you should require of a horse.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Danzig

zenyatta won once on dirt, rachel once on poly. so, i don't quite get your 'atleast Zenyatta has shown she can win on both' statement, since you seem to completely ignore the fact that rachel has the same 1/1 record on polycrap that zen has on dirt.

if you don't think a main track horse has to run on turf, why would you think a poly horse has to run on dirt, or vice versa? dirt is not synonomous with poly by any means. the fact that rachel can win on any type of dirt track, fast, good, sloppy, and at a multitude of tracks, in a variety of ways, should show you all the dimensions you should require of a horse.

Only because poly hasn't replaced turf races as it has for many of the traditional dirt races. Ie. Pacific Classic, Hollywood Gold Cup, Big Cap, Maybe it wasn't the best adjective to use 'synonomous' but I still regard synth closer to dirt than it is to turf. You may see this differently and I am okay if you do. There's no right or wrong to this.