Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Bonnie — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:49:16 GMT

Excuse me, Racingfan, I was not aware I couldn't respond to the back and forth.

...and if MTB hadn't run the race would have been different and perhaps she wouldn't have won...let's stop with the what-if, maybe's and could-have-beens. They are both extraordinary athletes with an obvious love for the run.

I am greatly disappointed Rachel won't be in the Belmont, it would have been a true test to her ability...but it is not to be. Borel states 'I'm glad she's not in the race' and that tells me he would like to be the first Triple Crown jockey, and who will take him to the finish first--I think he is a fabulously talented rider that well knows his mounts. Congrats to all the winners!

Let's look forward to a great Belmont and an even better Breeder's! :)

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Racingfan — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:49:16 GMT

Bonnie: are you also "whatever"? If not, my comment on the negativity was not directed to you. The post I referred to was very negative toward Mr. Jackson with the comments about "purchasing" the race and him "needing attention". I know very well about supplement fees and Rachel was not the first horse in racing to be supplemented. However, she WON the race - he didn't pay for someone to call her the winner. I like Mine That Bird a lot - but if he "deserved" to be a triple crown winner he would have won the race whether she was entered or not. Should Alydar have not been entered in one of the races just so he might not interfere with Affirmed winning...? How about all other races - should some horses not get to run because they may interfere with who wins....? Also remember, winning the Derby race does not indicate a triple crown is on the horizon (135 horses have won that). Even if she didn't run MTB may not have won. The race may have been run completely differently and someone else may have been up front at the end. Nobody can say.... I am well aware of facts in racing as well as the history. And the fact is: ALL previous triple crown winners beat ALL entrants in ALL three races. You are correct though - there is no "blame". It is racing and the best horse on the day wins.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Bonnie — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:37:00 GMT

Nothing negative here, Racingfan. I regret for you that you are not aware of the facts, or do not agree with them. Rachel's owners had to pay the supplemental fee because she was not nominated. End of story. If you feel that reflects on my personal feelings concerning the winner or loser I can only wonder what makes you think you 'know' me. Perhaps you might consider taking up this issue with those that do the nominating, but I would first suggest you research the issue.

Now, as far as MTB goes, let's remember he was not in the 'running' for the Kentucky Derby until alot of other horses were scratched... it's the way TB racing works. Don't take my word, though, simply research it.

I absolutely do 'blame'(perhaps you can come up with a better word...?) Rachel for MTB's loss. Who else beat him? Is there another factor that I am not aware of that caused MTB to not win? If so, who should I 'blame' for that? I also believe we should keep in mind that RA is not a Triple Crown winner, either. There are no freaks, there are no flukes. They are one for one.

There really is no blame here. There is no fault here. The facts are available for anyone. I am disappointed that Rachel will not be running in the Belmont. Her 'gruelling schedule' is no more so than the others, in fact maybe even less gruelling considering she only runs the shorter distances, and she's a huge animal.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Racingfan — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:53:54 GMT

Whatever: How negative! I was wondering just how long you have been a personal friend (or enemy) of Jess Jackson? You write about him with such authority that you must know him well....? As for the Preakness being "purchased", should all the races start being "manufactured" to leave out certain competition to ensure we get the correct winner....? If that is how we are to end up with the next triple crown winner I for one am not interested! Once again, a triple crown winner MUST DEFEAT ALL ENTRANTS regardless of sex, weight or supplementary entry!

Why are so many of you blaming MTB's "lost triple crown" on Rachel? He didn't win - period! All previous winners WON against all who entered and he did not. That does not mean he is not a terrific horse - just not a triple crown winner.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Bonnie — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:13:51 GMT

CORRECTION:

I used the term 'invited' and that is wrong. Horses are 'Nominated' to the Preakness, RA was not nominated, hence the fee.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Bonnie — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:45:16 GMT

While I agree that both horses may be talented, my experience with racehorses tells me that had MTB not been bumped sideways(and I can't say why a foul wasn't called if the bump was,indeed, that) I believe he would have left RA in the dust.

According to RA's owners she is working well, is fit, and had a great time--why is there any doubt that this great and special filly shouldn't run in the Belmont? Why the doubt in this huge 'freak' filly? Honestly, if she's the super horse they say, there would be no question as to her running. This forestalling is probably foretelling.....

As far as buying the Preakness I believe that post refers to RA not being invited, that is to say, her owners had to pay a 100K supplemental fee for her to enter the race, money bought RA the priviledge to race. MTB was invited.

In closing, RA is in great shape. She and MTB have had the same gruelling schedule, they are comparables....let them finish the game together.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

SusanW — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:14:41 GMT

DK, but do you agree it would be awesome..Rachel and Zenyatta..and maybe even throw Stardom Bound in the mix.

Who would have thought that the fillies and mares are bringing racing to where it belongs.

I look at Rachel and Zenyatta, and I see great things...

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

SusanW — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:12:44 GMT

We need Rachel and Zenyatta. They are bringing racing back. In our times of trouble...they are drawing much needed interest.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

DK Stables — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:37:11 GMT

She definitely will need all the rest she can to face Zenyatta, perhaps the best of the last 20??

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

SusanW — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:42:37 GMT

L...much as saving Rachel for the Travers...no. not after last year. All I saw was a rodeo with a five mil paycheck.

Mine that Bird could win the Belmont, and I hope he does. I am tired of him being called a fluke. He has the pedigree, his sire defeated my Smarty Jones.

And please...let Rachel stay where she belongs..with us. No Dubai b.s...that hasn't worked out to well for Sheik M.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Thu, 28 May 2009 21:25:12 GMT

As much as I'd enjoy seeing her race in the Belmont I think the fact that JJ and SA haven't gotten the 'sign' they want from her to declare her is a sign to skip the Belmont.

There is nothing to prove in that race, no need for her to go a mile and a half, save her for the late summer campaign, put her back against the boys in the Haskell or the Travers and have her ready for the Breeders Cup and Dubai.

That's the race I'd really like to see her in the Dubai, give her the same international trip as Curlin and in the meantime let Borel get back on MTB and the colts fight it out in the Belmont.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

sweet terchi — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:21:27 GMT

Monica V, I agree, so much concentration is being put on MTB and RA that the rest of the field is being overlooked. Some of the horses entered already had a rest, so they are primed and ready to go. Every race has a dark horse, if he or she wins is another matter.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

SusanW — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:19:36 GMT

I appreciate your reply...however..why this nonsense about her needing a rest. Don't they all? That is what the Triple Crown is.

I am undecided about her running, if she was in my stable, yes, I probably would. She posted a work faster than Mine that Bird (and yes, I love that little guy).

Remember one thing, racing is in trouble. With the Queen Zenyatta and the Princess, Rachel we need both of them.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

CAROL MORAN — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:14:24 GMT

SINCE SHE PROVED THAT SHE CAN BEAT THE COLTS AND SINCE THERE WILL BE NO TRIPLE CROWN THIS YEAR I THINK THEY SHOULD PUT HER BACK WITH FILLIES AND PUT HER IN THE FILLY TRIPLE CROWN SERIES SINCE THERE HASNT BEEN A FLLY TRIPLE CROWN IN A FEW YEARS ..SHE IS A WONDERFULL FILLY AND ZENYATTA IS OUT THERE TO RACE ALSO ...WOULD BE FUN TO SEE HER RACE HER TOO..

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

goober — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:38:31 GMT

i dont know how any one on here can say ra needs rest how many of you been down to the barn to check on her maybe mtb needs a break

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

jimmy711 — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:20:04 GMT

and after the breeders cup preparing her for the dubai cup at Almidan to make history in the first openning next year

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

jimmy711 — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:17:13 GMT

she should not run in the belmont for the sake of the filly,and start to prepare her for the breeders cup,she may pick a couple of a Group one races before that

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

sophiekea — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:42:12 GMT

Great comment Dahoss. Didnt you see him slide in on the rail at the top of the stretch? I guess SusanW saw something we missed...LOL

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

UCLinden — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:01:15 GMT

Is there any point to prove if Rachel runs in The Belmont ; none at all. There's no Triple Crown on the line , so why ruin a good horse ?? Whatever future plans Rachel's connections have , why put them to chance by running in The Belmont ?? If she was to run , it just might take something out of her ; would I take that risk with a horse like Rachel , NO WAY .... I'm looking down the road.

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Mike Relva — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:40:49 GMT

TO:MONICA V

Let me correct you! I like both of them!

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

geegees — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:26:35 GMT

She has already proven that she can beat the boys. Why not wait for the Mother Goose and go for the fillt triple crown? And then go after Zenyatta!

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

hydro — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:16:56 GMT

give her a rest, and run her on the turf. (helps horses stay sound) then run her against ventura, and zenyatta

and if you can beat them, take a trip to europe, if you fair well, then try the arc. i would do that if i had a filly as talented as her.(PLAY THE GAME TO THE MAX. YOU ARE HOLDING A PAT HAND).....

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

da3hoss — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:56:17 GMT

JJ said no decision for another week...he also said if CB chose to ride MTB and RA did run, Robby Alvarado would have the ride..yah think he's stonewalling to try and get CB to commit off RA so he can get Robby on her? I am such a cynic...

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

da3hoss — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:53:26 GMT

SusanW, MTB didn't run 1 1/4 miles and 1 3/16? Where did he jump in, I missed it! Isn't it illegal to not run the whole race? Shouldn't they review the races and disqualify him for cheating?

re: Should Rachel Alexandra Run in The Belmont?

Monica V — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:48:52 GMT

A purchased Preakness??????????

That Preakness had to be won and it was.