Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Karen2 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:55:04 GMT

Gunbow: Calvin didn't get his jockey triple crown but it doesn't matter. Calvin, MTB and RA have brought more to this industry this year than we could have dreamed. I have considered myself a "lone" avid horse racing fan for many years living up here in the North country among cowboys and quarter horses. But this year has been different. My husband watched the Belmont with me, is reading the book about Secretariat and proclaimed that he is really starting to get in to this horse racing. My nephew called me right after the race today to discuss the heart of MTB and what he witnessed and the toughness he saw in Dunkirk. My brother in law sent the you tube video of MTB winning the derby around to every one of his friends proclaiming the best horse race he has ever seen. My office partners were all aware of the race this weekend and were going to watch to see if the little gelding could pull it off. Furthermore they have all watched Calvin in interviews and on T.V and of course on "Jay Letterman". They love the guy. He is so real and unassuming and all he has ever cared about was riding a horse. None of these people have been horse racing fans in the past. This has been a year I tell you. I have loved every minute of it and will chalk it up as one of my most favorite three year old campaigns ever and the coolest thing about it..there was no triple crown on the line. Just good horse racing. My only regrets this year have been the obvious missing of QR,IWR and for me the Pamplemousse. I now have mad love for a filly and a little gelding from NM. Dunkirk stepped up several notches in my book today and proved his worth. I can go to bed content and happy as all is good in the horse racing world. I would like to hear word on Gabby though as that was a concern to me. Hope you all enjoyed this as much as me. I couldn't wait to get on the board and see what my fellow bloggers had to say........ Wow... can't wait to see more of this little gelding. He has danced the dance and in commanding style. I feel like he has won the crown in his own way.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

GunBow — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:36:50 GMT

I just posted over on Jason's blog. Here's my basic take on this past week:

For those concerned about the general population's interest in the Belmont, this year's Belmont has received more media attention than any Belmont I can remember(back to 89) that did not involve a horse trying to win a Triple Crown. And to be honest, I think the general media focus on this year's Belmont is very, very close to last year when Big Brown was going for the Triple. While many on this blog have debated the comparative merits of Rachel, Bird, Zenyatta, and Jess Jackson, not enough attention has been paid to the one story that the larger sports media and general population have really latched on to, and that is Borel going for the "Calvin Crown". Guess who is on David Letterman tonight(Friday June5th)? That's right, Calvin Borel.

There has been alot of discussion the past 3 weeks about the relative abilities of Mine That Bird and Rachel Alexandra, and which one is a bigger "story" or "draw". Ultimately, this debate has missed the marked, because the biggest star of this Triple Crown campaign, in the eyes of the larger sports media and general public, has been Calvin Borel. He, more so than Rachel and even Bird', has transcended the sport of horse racing and been embraced by millions of "casual" fans. And in the story of the "Calvin Crown", Mine That Bird and Rachel Alexandra are not mortal enemies to be argued over, but are part of a larger story, each having been teamed with Calvin and having given him the opportunity to accomplish his unique Triple. If Calvin and Bird win the Belmont, the story should not be how Rachel "ruined" Bird's Triple Crown, or how poor a sportsman Jess Jackson is; the story should be how two wonderful racehorses, one a small, longshot gelding with a big heart, the other a brilliant, giant filly with amazing spirit, combined together to help an unheralded but engaging veteran jockey reach the pinnacle of the sport, and national fame.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

helsbelles — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:38:17 GMT

Karen2, GunBow smartly stays away from the free-for-all over on the other blog, then comes back with his well-reasoned synopsis of the whole mess (LOL). Well, no one can say Mine That Bird isn't getting the respect he deserves now; he is 2-1 on the morning line.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Bradgm — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:21:16 GMT

Steve, I've been with an ill relative so haven't been reading or posting much. But wanted to take time to say your comments about Rachel and her connections is the most spot on comment I've read.

I'm sort of amazed in the country that loves the little guy and the underdog,even somewhat embraced the filly. Me? It goes back to how I feel about Hal.

The reason people get to bickering on the other blog? Seem to feel free to trash people at will.

By the way Steve, nice article on Wayne. But what else is new, spend most of my time talking to you telling you "Nice article, Great Book, terrific blog" Just keep it up.

Hopefully I will get back in the swing of things soon and be able to read more and chat.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Karen2 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:27:01 GMT

Gunbow you are being asked for on the other blog. I can see why you are remaining over here. This seems to be a much better place to be without near the bickering. I have immense respect for those that are open minded to others opinions. Thanks for all the great knowledge you bring to these boards. I am missing For Big Red.

Helsbelles: I am baffled by the training for the Belmont but its not the first time and won't be the last. As long as MTB comes into this race feeling good and fit I believe he will be a major contender. The distance is right up his ally and he just may be far more prepared than some of the others. If this race out plays out for MTB, my guess is he will win it. Charitable Man is a threat.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

helsbelles — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:22:36 GMT

What I got from you latest article about training up to the Belmont stakes, is that in this edition of the race we will have a lot of less than fit horses running (similar to Big Brown not being prepared for the 1 1/2 mile challenge last year). I wonder if I am correct though in my opinion that Mine That Bird will the most fit of the entrants, since he seems to gallop farther and more often on a regular basis. I wonder if I am right in this? Also, you mentioned you would have more to say about MTB's gallops, but did not get a chance to. I am still hoping you can somehow fit in that article about Rachel and her connections winning the Kentucky Oaks, even though circumstances have changed dramatically for her.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

slewofdamascus — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:33:11 GMT

Gun Bow, thanks for the great post.

Sometimes I write without thinking (WWT), I meant her ability as it relates to the BC Classic, I assumed wrongly, didn't mean to put words into your mouth. Sorry about that.

Nice take, in any case. Brown Bess winning the Yellow Ribbon (which I think was the top race at the time?) was a memory that will always stay with me, because of her NoCal association (Jenda), with a trainer I liked at the time.

Jenda, interestingly, was the trainer of a 2yo who got sent to Mullins and flourished, winning the SA Derby, if I recall correctly. Can't recall his name, however. What's memorable about that, for me, was that Mullins made derogatory comments (essentially) about her previous training when asked to explain the turnaround.

It is my belief that it wasn't the difference between Mullin's "extraordinary" training ability and Jenda's lack of the same that accounted for the form reversal. It was Mullins illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs, most likely.

I'm not trying to open a can of worms, I just feel bad for Jenda who never got another decent horse after that. He still toils in the local ranks.

Imo, Mullins should be in jail for illegally altering the outcome of a sporting event (probably about a thousand or so times).

But I digress.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

GunBow — Sun, 31 May 2009 07:14:10 GMT

slewofdamascus:

It's not that I am down on Forever Together. I was writing only on what she has accomplished. Does she have the talent to repeat? I think she does. However, as you said, I need to see her do it before I can place her alongside the upper echelon female turf horses of all time. As her record stands, right now, I would not rate her an exceptional Eclipse winner; I really can't even say she was faster or more accomplished than Gorella, a mare that never won an Eclipse. Of recent Eclipse winning female turfers based in the US, Forever Together, as of today, does not stand out from the likes of Soaring Softly, Perfect Sting, Golden Apples, and Intercontinental. And, I do not think I'm going out on a limb to state that none of these horses will be elected to the Hall of Fame. As I mentioned, Flawlessly is one of the very, very few female turf horses,based in the US, to have been elected to the Hall.

However, if in 6 months we are looking at a Forever Together that has won 6 total grade 1 races, repeated as the Eclipse champion, and either won a second Breeders Cup Filly and Mare Turf or defeated males in a grade 1, the Hall of Fame would be a very serious possibility.

In my opinion, Possibly Perfect is the second best North American based female turf horse of the last 15 years; she was a 6-time grade 1 winner and the Eclipse champion of 1995. Yet, as I mentioned, I doubt she will ever make it to the Hall of Fame; through 2009, Possibly Perfect has not even made it onto a final ballot(final 3 under consideration for the Hall). However, Possibly Perfect won only one Eclipse, and won only one Beverly D, at the time the biggest race for female turf horses. Forever Together, with 2 Eclipses and 2 Breeders Cups, would be a stronger Hall contender.

One problem when considering Forever Together's chances of getting into the Hall is that female turf horses are an often overlooked division, and have been virtually ignored by Hall of Fame voters. For US-based runners, Flawlessly is the standard for female turfers over the last 15-20 years. Flawlessy was a two-time Eclipse champ(1992, 1993), and was runner-up two other years(1991, 1994). Flawlessy won 9 grade 1 races, including 3 wins in both the Matriarch and Ramona(John Mabee). Unlike top Euro females, including American Hall of Fame members Dahlia and Miesque, Flawlessy did not beat males. Thus, A win in a grade 1 vs. males would really strengthen Forever Together's Hall of Fame resume. Again, though, she still has to go out and do it.

Slew, dont forget that I did say that Forever Together is a wonderful horse and the clear #1 female turf horse in North America. Just because I think it is premature to put Forever Together in the Hall of Fame right now doesnt mean I do not respect her or think she is anything but a top-level horse. I'm not sure how you inferred from my previous email that I "dont think much of her ability" (I'm not writing with any anger, just a little confused because in my previous post I delibrately added some compliments to make sure I didnt come across as overly critical of Forever Together). Again, I think alot of her ability, but I don't like her chances to get into the Hall of Fame, at least if she were to never win again.

How does Forever Together compare with the males on turf and synthetics? Right now, Einstein is probably considered to be the best older male on both turf and synthetics. While I respect the heck out of Einstein, he doesn't exactly have overwhelming talent, so I think Forever Together would have a chance. In general, the older males on turf, synthetics, and dirt are not an intimidating group. I'm not sure if Forever Together wants 12 furlongs, but from 8 to 10 furlongs, I think Forever Together would have a real chance against the likes of Cowboy Cal, Court Vision, Gio Ponti, and Hyperbaric. However, I would probably rank her behind Einstein and Kip Deville at 9 furlongs on turf, and behind Grand Couterier and Dancing Forever at 10 furlongs(turf). And do not count out other female turf horses like Cocoa Beach, Ventura at a mile, and maybe Rutherienne.

Pointing Forever Together to the BC Classic would be ambitious. Although US older males like Einstein and Well Armed do not strike fear into the heart, what if Europe sends a couple of stars equivalent to Ravens Pass or Henrythenavigator? What if a 3 year old colt like Quality Road returns 100%, or Mine That Bird continues to improve? And what if Rachel and Zenyatta are pointed for the Classic? If a couple of these scenarios occur, I would expect to see Forever Together back in the Filly and Mare Turf.

As for Brown Bess, 1989 was my first year following the sport, and I lived in California, so I was very much a fan of Brown Bess. She was just a pint-sized little thing, but she was a fierce competitor, a female John Henry. And like John, Bess won grade 1s late in life, at ages 7 and 8.

As for Brown Bess' place in history, do I think she was great? No, but she was very, very good. As with Possibly Perfect, Brown Bess is most likely a longshot to make the Hall. Since each year only one contemporary female can be elected to the Hall, voters are more likely to focus on dirt/synthetic stars rather than turfers like Brown Bess, Possibly Perfect, and Forever Together. Thus, in recent voting the finalists for the Hall have been Open Mind, Sky Beauty, Silverbulletday, and Inside Information and not Possibly Perfect or Brown Bess. I think the US-based female turfers are hurt by the belief that the best females turfers are in Europe anyways, and that in comparison to the rest of the world, US-based female dirt horses are superior to the US female turfers(same thing for males, which is why there are so few pure turf runners in the Hall).

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

slewofdamascus — Sun, 31 May 2009 02:01:10 GMT

Gun Bow, I was wondering if you have an opinion on Brown Bess? If not, that's okay, just curious, she's the first really good turf mare that I got to see up close (out of NoCal).

Who is the top male (American) turfer right now? And what would the public think of FT's chances in a grade 1 that included the top male turfers?

Thanks.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

slewofdamascus — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:49:37 GMT

Gun Bow, I think you make good points, and I obviously got the win against males wrong (sorry), however, I'm a little higher on Forever Together than you are, in that I think she will repeat her performances of last year, probably improve on them. I hope they will take on males, also. I believe she will win you over by the time it's all said and done (this year), let's check back later on this. But you're right, she still has to do it (that's the corner I'll be occupying). And, perhaps, then maybe you'll see the same trumvarite that I do.

Here's a crazy one for you that came to me while I was writing the FT thing, and you may not appreciate its potential because you don't think much of her ability, but if you look at the handicap division (males), it seems to me that a mare like Forever Together would have a real chance in the BC Classic on synthetic, not too different (in nature) than the outcome of last year's edition. I know it sounds crazy, but I'd point Forever Together to the BC Classic.

[I've probably lost all credibility, but that was bound to happen......smile]

Thanks for the feedback.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Kat — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:18:39 GMT

Although Jess J prefaced the comment with his negative thoughts about synthetics, he said that IF Rachel goes to Santa Anita for the BCC series, it will in the Classic, not the "Ladies" (unlike Zen's connectios who have stated their goal is the Ladies). Of course, this is still May. . .

Given the arguments last year that Big Brown needed to "go" to the reigning HOY to meet him, that might seem to indicate that public opinion would be that RA needs to seek out Zenyatta, not vice versa. Although Zenyatta would certainly up her credentials to leave CA and race on dirt again. IMHO, that is the more satisfying solution.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

GunBow — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:31:57 GMT

Slewofdamascus:

Your analysis of Jess Jackson makes sense. It is possible, however, that he convinced even himself that he was really thinking about running in the Belmont, lol.

Slew, can't quite agree with comparing Forever Together to either Rachel or Zenyatta. Forever Together did not defeat males in the Breeders Cup; she won the BC Filly and Mare Turf. The filly that beat the boys on Breeders Cup day was the European 3 year old, Goldikova, in the Turf Mile. Forever Together is a nice turf mare, but is really average as far as Eclipse winners are concerned; she has a long way to go to be comparable to a female like Flawlessly, one of the very few female turf horses in the Hall of Fame. Forever Together is not really that close to even Possibly Perfect, a 6-time grade 1 winner that, most likely, will never get into the Hall of Fame.

Forever Together won the gr.1 BC Filly and Mare Turf, gr.1 First Lady, and gr.1 Diana, and ran 3rd in the gr.1 Just a Game and gr.2 Canadian. She started this year in good fashion, winning the gr.2 Jenny Wiley.

Slew, my intention is not to be negative. I just take Hall of Fame talk seriously. Forever Together is a nice mare, and is the #1 female turfer in North America right now. However, to be a realistic Hall of Fame threat she most likely needs, at the very least, to repeat last year's record by winning 3 more gr.1 races, and repeating in the Filly and Mare Turf, or defeat males in a gr.1.

In comparison, I believe Rachel and Zenyatta are already on the doorsteps of the Hall of Fame. Rachel might need to win a few more races, but even if she were to never run again, I think Rachel's conncections could make a strong case for the Hall. Zenyatta probably needs to win a few more races, with gr.i races preferable, but would also have a strong case even if she were to never run again. If Forever Together were not to win again, she would have zero chance for the Hall.

I do agree with your larger point. These are 3 wonderful female racehorses, who appear to have a certain degree of speciality. Zenyatta did beat the 07' champion older female, Ginger Punch, on dirt last year, and Rachel is facing a run on synthetics if she is to win the Breeders Cup Ladies Classic. Hopefully, Zenyatta will get a chance to either prove herself on dirt again or compete vs. males, and Rachel will display in the Breeders Cup that she is extremely fast on synthetics too.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

needler in Virginia — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:04:43 GMT

Oh, hell, I'm just glad they finally got off the pot!! While I applaud Borel's faithfulness to the amazing filly, it does seem pretty tacky to keep him up in the air for so long about the Belmont. The Jackson waiting game got to be more about how many times he could yank our chains than "making the final decision" because there MIGHT be something the filly would say today that she did NOT say yesterday! Gamesmanship? Poker? Chess? Chinese Checkers? More like BS and a peeing contest, I think.

So the final announcement is made .... she won't run ....... let's just make sure Mr Borel is wearing the correct silks that day, OK?

Safe trips to all, and cheers.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

slewofdamascus — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:20:38 GMT

I wanted to add about racing's current Triumvarite, each one can do (or has already done) things on their own particular surface that mark their individual distinction. They don't need to face eachother to prove how great they are, at least imo.

In the case of Forever Together and Rachael Alexandra, they have each beaten males in highly prestigious races, the Breeder's Cup and Preakness, respectively. Why Zenyatta's connections refuse to even consider facing males - on her best surface (synthetics) - is a bit deflating, frankly, and for me it needs to be addressed in any future discussions of "the all-time greats". I love these connections, so I'm not going to knock them, but I hope they realize what's at stake. And she can do it. I don't quite get it. Maybe their goal is simply to out-pace Personal Ensign?

This is a problem (of legacy) for Z that won't go away until (if) she beats males. Jmo, of course.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

slewofdamascus — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:22:59 GMT

Karen, thanks. There are some good, observant posters on this blog.

[then there is draynay] smile

Steve, I read your take on the JJ waiting game. Nice work! You may have influenced the connections, such that they announced their decision, today.

I said earlier I'd be floored if she runs in the Belmont, I won't repeat the reasons, but the reason for waiting to announce the "decision", I think, has to do with a sort of gamesmanship, where they don't want anyone to think that this race was NEVER under consideration (which is what I believe); on the contrary, they want the voters to think this was a tough, drawn out decision, that was touch and go, until finally, they declined to run.

In many ways, it's like poker, not showing your hand, even after you've been victorious (but you'll be happy to lie about what you had).

There was no way, in my mind, that they were going to run her a mile and a half against ANYBODY, 3 weeks after making modern-day history in the Preakness. Just as a practical matter, why undo all the good that comes from making that history, over the Derby winnner, which is how it will be remembered?

This is the race that has befuddled many Derby and preakness winners - especially with fresh, rested warriors ready to fire their best shots.

Chocolate Candy, for example, has been training over the course, and doing everything right by all accounts, and if you can get a price (5-1 or higher) there are a lot of good connections in one's favor, for this Candy Ride is likely to stay the trip, one way or the other.

As for Rachel, this was the best (only) decision that also made great sense. Just as the connections didn't choose to enter the Preakness in a vacuum, they didn't dismiss the Belmont likewise - they laid out a plan, a long-range plan probably, likely before the ink dried on the ownership transfer agreement back in April. Everything else - gamesmanship (a distraction).

Jmo, of course.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Karen2 — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:01:39 GMT

Thanks for telling it like it is Steve. I can always depend on you to keep it real. There is no telling why they are holding out on a decision to run RA in the Belmont. Perhaps its as simple as "because they can". They are holding the cards right now and I would say they really enjoy that. Just a guess : )

Slewofdamascus: loved your post. Always interesting to hear these very observant points of view. I also love the name RAZ! To cool!

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

MATT H. — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:14:44 GMT

I ENJOYED THE ARTICAL BUT HERE IS MY QUESTION WHY ARE THEY TAKING SO LONG TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE BELMONT I PERSONALLY THINK SHE IS ALREADY IN THE BELMONT AND THAT IS WHY THEY WORKED A HALF MILE IN THE BELMONT BU THEY LIKE TO PLAY HEAD GAMES MAKE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARENT NOT RUNING WHEN THE ACTUALLY HAVE EVERY INTENTION TO DO SO THAT THEY ARE WAIT TILL MONDAY BECAUSE CALVIN DOESNT HAVE THAT MUCH TIME BACK WITH MINE THAT BIRD THEY ONLY HAVE 4DAYS AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IF THEY PUT RACHEL IN THE RACE THEY HAVE TO FIND A JOCKEY REALLY QUICK FOR MINE THAT BIRD AND AS TO MY KNOLEDGE THEY HAVENT PUT GOMEZ ON ADN THAT WOULD BE 3 JOCKES ON AND BACK TO RACHEL THE RUN ON MONDAY SHE DID IT 50 SECONDS A FULL SECOND FASTER THAN MINE THAT BIRD BUT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT TRACK SHE DID THAT AT CHURCHHILL NOT BELMONT FUTHER MORE IF YOUR RUNNING HER IN A HALF MINE DONT YOU ALREADY KNOW WHERE YOUR GOING THE BELMONT STEAKS IT DONT TAKE A GUINUS TO FIGURE THAT OUT AN HE JUST NEED TO MAKE A DECISION I THINK HE IS GETTING ENJOYMET OUT OF PEOPLE WONERING WHATS GOING ON BECASUE THE BALL IN HIS COURT AN AS FAR AS MINE THAT BIRD THEY HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT JACKSON IS GOIN TO DO. HORSE RACING IS A MENTAL GAME AS WELL AS PUTTING THE HORSES ON THE TRACK

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

slewofdamascus — Fri, 29 May 2009 01:59:59 GMT

Are we far removed from the MTB VS. RA blogosphere melee that followed the mighty gelding's gritty, down-home performances in the early Triple Crown races?

While underatandable, I ask because as understandable as that was, the real debate, already percolating from the depths of the blogosphere, found its tipping point in the Belmont's extra week, typically a slow, beleaguered week, in which breaking news is on the order of: Baffert Introduces, 'Cody's Greatest Hits; The Age of Poddy'......and so on. Ho hum.

But in these unusually robust times, a new story has found big traction, a story befitting the new queen, Rachael. "Z" has entered the builing.

Like any great matchup, it pits one absolute style versus another, one history versus another, one style of ownership versus another; there is nothing whatsoever in common in their stories, if they were people they would either love or hate one another, and we all know "it's a fine line between love and hate", anyway.

But in reality, these two, let's callem RAZ, they are so different that I wonder if it's not a classic case of Apples and Oranges. Take, for example, Forever Together, the overlooked mare (in the great triumvarite), who would not be and has not been compared (competitively) against RAZ, because she is precisely so obviously different. She's a turf horse. A great one. But no one has pined for a matchup with the other two.

The point is, might this be a case of having 3 entirely different girls, with different surface and distance strengths. RA on the dirt - the classic campaign in every respect, a 3yo (of either gender) for the ages. Z on the sythetics - a California synthetic girl so pumped that they call her "Guv" around the barn, she prefers a shorter stroll over a longer one, as undefeated as the day she was born. And FT on the turf - hall of fame certainty on the grass at the classic distances.

I doubt seriously that any of these three - let's call them FARTZ - will ever race against one another.

And perhaps that is as it should be?

[ahem]

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Racingfan — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:04:43 GMT

Agreed Ragsy! And glad to hear you are becoming a fan. Racing is an awesome thing to follow! Lots of history and great race horses!

Gunbow: You are correct that the distances and spacing of the races has not always been what it is now but it has been a long time since it was standardized. It is true that only the last three triple crown winners won under the current format. BUT, all previous winners had it even more difficult I would say. Those who had a month between the Preakness and the Belmont: Sir Barton, Omaha, Whirlaway, Count Fleet and Citation all ran in another race in between (Sir Barton, Omaha & Count Fleet ran in the Withers, Whirlaway ran in the Henry of Navarre Purse and Citation ran in the Jersey Stakes). Gallant Fox, War Admiral and Assault only had 1 week between the Derby and the Preakness and then 3 weeks to the Belmont. So, I personally think the present spacing it much the best and I hope it is never changed or the accomplishments of these great horses will certainly be diminished. :-)

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Ragsy — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:39:49 GMT

What do you guys and gals have against Rachel Alexandra winning the Preakness, yes, I like Mine That Bird but I knew Rachel would beat him why, just a feeling I had..WE dont need a Triple Crown winner until a horse can win over all competition on the field..

Long live Queen Zenyatta and Princess Rachel.....hope they win them all......

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Pedigree Shelly — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:37:59 GMT

No Way should the Triple Crown races be shortened!! I remember when Lukas made that comment, He is a great trainer but,if he likes shorter distances he should just stick to Quarter Horses !!!

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Ragsy — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:30:33 GMT

needler you are so very right, we need the Triple Crown just as it is... Mr. Lucas was wrong and does need a very long vacation... lets wait and get that one special horse that can accomplish the trip....love the horses always....I am not a racing fan, but am learning about the horses and leaning toward becoming a racing fan..

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Karen in Texas — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:18:05 GMT

If you just search "toe grabs" on the Bloodhorse site, there are several articles over the past year addressing the safety and banning issues. It looks as though NYRA and CDI have banned all but 2mm plates. The Thoroughbred Safety Committee apparently made that same recommendation last June.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

LDP — Wed, 27 May 2009 23:46:46 GMT

Karen2,

I think they did away with toe grabs on the front feet. I might be wrong, but i'm pretty sure of it.

re: Preakness recap: Remarkable Rachel

Karen in Indiana — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:18:03 GMT

Karen2, they changed the length of the grab and made it shorter. I don't think that's a state regulation. If I remember correctly, last year the Jockey Club made recommendations and then certain tracks took them up. Churchill Downs was one of them. Is that correct, anyone who knows?