I'll be the First to ask?

packerbacker7964 · #1 04-05-2009, 06:37 PM

Can Rachel Alexandra take on the boys in the near future Triple Crown races? I think she should stay with the fillies unless not much else comes out of the last few preps. IWR has to be the 1st on the list but with POTN out there's one less to worry about in the Derby.

Danzig · #2 04-05-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packerbacker7964

Can Rachel Alexandra take on the boys in the near future Triple Crown races? I think she should stay with the fillies unless not much else comes out of the last few preps. IWR has to be the 1st on the list but with POTN out there's one less to worry about in the Derby.

when did they say he was out? as for rachel alexandra, i would like to see her take on the colts, but i doubt she does any time soon.

SOREHOOF · #3 04-05-2009, 06:40 PM

I think he means P-Moose

Danzig · #4 04-05-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I think he means P-Moose

i think so too, but wanted to make sure.

packerbacker7964 · #5 04-05-2009, 06:42 PM

Yeah Moose my bad. I don't follow the Poly Horses too much.

dellinger63 · #6 04-05-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packerbacker7964

Can Rachel Alexandra take on the boys in the near future Triple Crown races? I think she should stay with the fillies unless not much else comes out of the last few preps. IWR has to be the 1st on the list but with POTN out there's one less to worry about in the Derby.

as a fan I'd love to see it but I think she'll head to the Oaks for now as it appears there for the taking.

mbahadur · #7 04-05-2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packerbacker7964

Can Rachel Alexandra take on the boys in the near future Triple Crown races? I think she should stay with the fillies unless not much else comes out of the last few preps. IWR has to be the 1st on the list but with POTN out there's one less to worry about in the Derby.

The connections will point for the Oaks, where she will be at very low odds. Then if she does well, then they could consider the Rags to Riches path of 2 years ago.

brianwspencer · #8 04-05-2009, 06:48 PM

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

mbahadur · #9 04-05-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

100% agree

Sightseek · #10 04-05-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

If it were my decision, this is what I would probably do.

I wonder how many more phone calls they will be getting for her tonight?

mclem0822 · #11 04-05-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

For all the reasons you've layed out Brian, no benefit at all. Totally agree.

lemoncrush · #12 04-05-2009, 07:02 PM

Too much talent in the Kentucky Derby this year, but she should have run in the Arkansas Derby instead of the Fantasy.

Now I think she just goes to the Oaks and continues against fillies the rest of the year.

eajinabi · #13 04-05-2009, 07:07 PM

Just hate to see her eyeball a cheap speed horse in the KY derby only to tire at the stretch.

Sightseek · #14 04-05-2009, 07:21 PM

What ever happened to that filly Sara Louise?

Antitrust32 · #15 04-05-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

I dont know that purse money or increasing her value would be the reason to go to the derby.

If I were the owner, I'd run in the Derby because, well, the Derby is the Derby and the Oaks is the Oaks...

The Derby is the one race everyone wants to win, and its more special IMO, to do it with a filly. There is much more history in that than a filly winning the Oaks.

Why not try if you have a horse you think can really compete?

packerbacker7964 · #16 04-05-2009, 07:22 PM

So who's she's going to face in the Oaks? After the Ashland Stardom Bound is down a couple rungs on the ladder?

Antitrust32 · #17 04-05-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

What ever happened to that filly Sara Louise?

in Dubai i believe

brianwspencer · #18 04-05-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I dont know that purse money or increasing her value would be the reason to go to the derby.

If I were the owner, I'd run in the Derby because, well, the Derby is the Derby and the Oaks is the Oaks...

The Derby is the one race everyone wants to win, and its more special IMO, to do it with a filly. There is much more history in that than a filly winning the Oaks.

Why not try if you have a horse you think can really compete?

I guess I just don't see the benefit of potentially getting herself in a ton of trouble, especially with the way the front end will likely set up in this year's Derby, just for a chance to win a race people want to win.

If she didn't look like such an overwhelming winner of the Oaks, I may feel differently. If I thought she stood a realistic chance of getting beaten in the Oaks, then why the hell not? Take your chance at getting beat in the Derby. Instead, she looks nearly impossible to beat, she hasn't taken a deep breath in a race in ages, and is a virtual lock to add the KY Oaks to her resume.

I'll take being a huge favorite in a race as prestigious as the Oaks over being one of the top 5 choices in the Derby just to say I did any day. I'd rather romp in the Oaks than take my chances getting beat in the Derby and then having nothing at all to show for it.

The Oaks is not some overnight stake at Arlington in the summer.

mbahadur · #19 04-05-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packerbacker7964

So who's she's going to face in the Oaks? After the Ashland Stardom Bound is down a couple rungs on the ladder?

Justwhistledixie should be the second choice (unless Stardom Bound attracts stupid bettors with deep pockets).

Justwhistledixie has won five races in a row.

Antitrust32 · #20 04-05-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I guess I just don't see the benefit of potentially getting herself in a ton of trouble, especially with the way the front end will likely set up in this year's Derby, just for a chance to win a race people want to win.

If she didn't look like such an overwhelming winner of the Oaks, I may feel differently. If I thought she stood a realistic chance of getting beaten in the Oaks, then why the hell not? Take your chance at getting beat in the Derby. Instead, she looks nearly impossible to beat, she hasn't taken a deep breath in a race in ages, and is a virtual lock to add the KY Oaks to her resume.

I'll take being a huge favorite in a race as prestigious as the Oaks over being one of the top 5 choices in the Derby just to say I did any day. I'd rather romp in the Oaks than take my chances getting beat in the Derby and then having nothing at all to show for it.

The Oaks is not some overnight stake at Arlington in the summer.

I never said the Oaks was a bad race... but it sure isnt the Derby.

If I had a horse I thought could really win the Derby I'd race her there.