Jackson passes on Belmont with Rachel Alexandra

Kasept · #1 05-29-2009, 05:00 PM

Statement by Jess Jackson on behalf of Stonestreet Stables and Harold
McCormick

“Rachel Alexandra is an incredible thoroughbred who has proven to be
the best three year old in racing today. We are elated by all the
attention her wins in the Oaks and Preakness has garnered the sport.
The many letters and emails we have received from young girls and racing
enthusiasts lets us know that many fans are proud of Rachel. When we
purchased Rachel, our goal was to restore the sport’s vitality and
grow its fan base by extending the racing careers of its stars.

After careful consideration, we have decided not to run Rachel
Alexandra in the Belmont Stakes next weekend. We have advised Calvin
Borel, Chip Woolley and Belmont of our decision. We thank them, the
media and the fans for their many courtesies and patience while we
pondered.

We know the media and many fans would have liked to see her run in the
Belmont Stakes — we feel the same. But all of us sincerely interested
in the horse must agree that we only want to see her run when it is best
for her. While she is in great shape, having strong works, and
recovering well from her amazing performances, we feel Rachel deserves a
well-earned vacation. 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.

Rachel, her owners, her trainers and her fans can continue to
anticipate an exciting campaign. All major races will be considered as
we look to the rest of Rachel’s racing career.”

tiggerv · #2 05-29-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

The many letters and emails we have received from young girls and racing
enthusiasts lets us know that many fans are proud of Rachel.

Comedy gold as always from Jess Jackson

Hickory Hill Hoff · #3 05-29-2009, 05:05 PM

Thank god.....I'll be able to sleep tonight!

All kidding aside.....smart move.

ateamstupid · #4 05-29-2009, 05:10 PM

There goes the bet-against opportunity of the year. I'm sure NYRA is thrilled with the 20,000 people they'll get at Belmont now.

#5 05-29-2009, 05:12 PM

That long-winded c**t. All we needed was one line.

South Beach Luv · #6 05-29-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

That long-winded c**t. All we needed was one line.

Just a fyi, you are my favorite poster

Rupert Pupkin · #7 05-29-2009, 05:27 PM

I actually give Jackson a lot of credit for doing right by the horse. As most of you probably know, Jackson has a very serious health issue and may not be around for too long. Many people in that situation would be selfish and would just want to watch their horse run even if it wasn't in the best interest of the horse. Instead of being selfish and putting himself first, Jackson put the horse first. I give him a lot of credit for that.

ninetoone · #8 05-29-2009, 05:51 PM

I was looking forward to betting against, but it seems like the right call to me...

jwkniska · #9 05-29-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I actually give Jackson a lot of credit for doing right by the horse. As most of you probably know, Jackson has a very serious health issue and may not be around for too long. Many people in that situation would be selfish and would just want to watch their horse run even if it wasn't in the best interest of the horse. Instead of being selfish and putting himself first, Jackson put the horse first. I give him a lot of credit for that.

I agree with you 100%.

ateamstupid · #10 05-29-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I actually give Jackson a lot of credit for doing right by the horse. As most of you probably know, Jackson has a very serious health issue and may not be around for too long. Many people in that situation would be selfish and would just want to watch their horse run even if it wasn't in the best interest of the horse. Instead of being selfish and putting himself first, Jackson put the horse first. I give him a lot of credit for that.

How do you know what's in the best interest of the horse?

fpsoxfan · #11 05-29-2009, 06:07 PM

Correct decision. It still makes for a wild and crazy Belmont Stakes!

ateamstupid · #12 05-29-2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Correct decision. It still makes for a wild and crazy Belmont Stakes!

Huh? What's wild or crazy about it?

Bobby Fischer · #13 05-29-2009, 06:12 PM

Im surprised that she wants to opt out.

#14 05-29-2009, 06:13 PM

It's a horrible decision considering it's a high probability she'll be retired at the end of the year. Especially if they run her against the girls all summer. Snooze city.

What I want to know is how can this sport grow when it is being controlled by the sheets? All the sheets do is turn these horsemen into gigantic vaginas.

NTamm1215 · #15 05-29-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It's a horrible decision considering it's a high probability she'll be retired at the end of the year. Especially if they run her against the girls all summer. Snooze city.

What I want to know is how can this sport grow when it is being controlled by the sheets? All the sheets do is turn these horsemen into gigantic vaginas.

I completely agree with what you're saying but he did mention after the Preakness that she will run against males again. I don't see why he'd even bother to run her against females. Hasn't that been asked and answered already?

NT

Rupert Pupkin · #16 05-29-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

How do you know what's in the best interest of the horse?

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.

#17 05-29-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I completely agree with what you're saying but he did mention after the Preakness that she will run against males again. I don't see why he'd even bother to run her against females. Hasn't that been asked and answered already?

NT

Maybe so. I don't read any articles pertaining to Jackson and if he's in a story I tend to skip over what he says because of fear of projectile vomiting.

I just find it odd that all of a sudden a horse who has been running very well and at a moderately frequent rate needs more than 3 weeks rest. Especially when the horse is owned by Mr. Sporting.

tector · #18 05-29-2009, 06:23 PM

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:

Quote:

How do you know what's in the best interest of the horse?

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.

Handicappy · #19 05-29-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

There goes the bet-against opportunity of the year. I'm sure NYRA is thrilled with the 20,000 people they'll get at Belmont now.

Lets see how they market it first. But you could be right. I hope not.

hurricanefrank · #20 05-29-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Maybe so. I don't read any articles pertaining to Jackson and if he's in a story I tend to skip over what he says because of fear of projectile vomiting.

I just find it odd that all of a sudden a horse who has been running very well and at a moderately frequent rate needs more than 3 weeks rest. Especially when the horse is owned by Mr. Sporting.

Perhaps it's as simple as the horse just isn't right. And if she isn't right there's ZERO reason to run her.