Zayat and Allen are conspiring to keep the filly (RA) out of the Preakness by packing the field with their inferior horses, including a maiden. What's most striking are the self-contradictory reasons Zayat gives. On one hand he says this is a "business decision" to knock out his main rival, while on the other hand he claims to be protecting the poor defenseless filly against the big bad colts. Disgusting and pure hypocrisy.
http://tinyurl.com/qvbg75
Bob
When I first read this stuff I had to check out the date to make sure it was not April 1.
Just completely ridiculous. People continuing to talk about how they don\'t want another Eight Belles. Nobody does. But running fast horses in competitive races is what this sport used to be about.
Mary Lou Whitney and the owner of Mine That Bird (can\'t even name him - Calvin prolly can\'t either) calling Zayat ( as he himself reported on TVG today) to get him to block the filly to \"enhance Birdstone as a sire\" is the most ridiculous thing I\'ve heard all spring.
Funny thing is - the race offers little to no value if she does get to run. Without her it\'s quite wide open and way more intruiging from a gambling perspective. I want to see her gallop and I\'ll save my sheckles for the Belmont
Has anybody ever seen a bigger bunch of crap than the pathetic excuses these clowns are using to exclude the Filly??
Is it any wonder that thoroughbred racing is just ahead of Women\'s Bowling or Billiard\'s with regards to national recognition?? ( I made that up, but you get the point)
So anytime a filly races against colts, we should exclude her because of what \"might\" happen?? I guess we should all stop driving our cars, because you never know...we might get into an accident.
I love this game, and I know there are many more of you that are much more involved in the game than I. Its almost embarassing to be associated with this sport when you see such ridiculous behavior. And to think, those responsible for these actions are people of extreme wealth and intelligence. Makes you wonder how they became successful in the first place.
They became successful with the kind of conspiring conniving greed they are exhibiting here.
Do we agree on something now P-Dub?
Buck,
You see no value in the race if Rachel runs? You should lose your thorograph password/board access for that... :) (just kidding)
Rachel running creates a tremendous value opportunity. Time to take the rubber band off the bankroll.
Filly runs the fastest race every for a 3 year old filly, which is a 4 point new top and 7 points of development from her 2 year old top. Gets a free pass/easy trip in that race. Now comes back on 2 weeks of rest to race against a 13 colts or so. She figures even money or so. Throw her off the trifecta tickets. Not sure I can play the super and throw her off those tickets as well.
The Derby winner, who will get play, comes in off a 6 point new top. Obviously, also off of 2 weeks rest. And, he got a dream trip on a golden rail.
In a post last week, I asked TGJB how many horses have run 4 point new tops or better in the Derby. Of the winners in the last 20 years, that would be Barbaro and Giacomo. (doubtful that any non-winners would have done this, but can\'t be sure). We know betting against those horses in the Preakness was a winning proposition.
I dream about these types of betting opportunities. The filly runs maybe a gallant 4th, with Mine that Bird well back in the pack.
Now, the key is to try and zero in on the winner and which horses to box in hte exacta and trifecta. Hull may have a \"Bernardini-type\" line coming into this race, although I have to see the sheet. Pioneer of the Nile, whom I confess I hated in the Derby, ran a very credible 2nd in the Derby. Raced on the outside in the 3 path the entire race, while the rail was the place to be. Yes, it will seem like POTN enters into the Preakness off a 2 point new top or so, but IMO measuring dirt tops compared to synthetic tops is meaningless. Very meaningless. What is much more important to me is Baffert\'s record in the Preakness. Silver Charm, Real Quiet and War Emblem all fired big shots in the Preakness off the short rest. POTN is the horse to beat in the Preakness IMO, but not sure the 9-2 or so odds are great value. Thinking General Quarters and his \"every other\" line is the value play in the Preakness. Expecting the Frenchman to give this horse a nice patient ride, on the rail, about 4 lengths off the speed. Looking for him in the number at 10-1 or so.
5 more days.....
The accident-car analogy might be applicable to racing in general but when it comes to running Rachel against colts on two weeks rest a more precise comparison would be the baby-car seat analogy.
You need a Form, you\'re in a hurry, you\'re only going a couple of blocks, you put Jr. in the car seat but you don\'t strap him in. Probably nothing happens. But if it does, you get rear ended and Jr gets thrown from his seat, injured or killed, do you ever forgive yourself? Or do you live with the anguish that you did not do everything possible to protect your child? Everything possible to protect: the difference between tragic accident and criminal negligence.
Now, I don\'t think there is a high probability that Rachel will be injured running in the Preakness. But I do think running on two weeks rest against colts there is a heightened probability. Maybe no more heightened than an injury occurring to a child who is not strapped into his car seat. But why run that risk?
Horses will always run to satisfy human vanity. But,should they be imprudently endangered to satisfy hubris? And that\'s what paying $10 million dollars for Rachel and running her in the Preakness is all about: not sport, but hubris.
Here\'s a poem by Philip Larkin. One can only hope that such a life awaits Rachel.
At Grass
The eye can hardly pick them out
From the cold shade they shelter in,
Till wind distresses tail and mane;
Then one crops grass, and moves about
- The other seeming to look on -
And stands anonymous again
Yet fifteen years ago, perhaps
Two dozen distances sufficed
To fable them : faint afternoons
Of Cups and Stakes and Handicaps,
Whereby their names were artificed
To inlay faded, classic Junes -
Silks at the start : against the sky
Numbers and parasols : outside,
Squadrons of empty cars, and heat,
And littered grass : then the long cry
Hanging unhushed till it subside
To stop-press columns on the street.
Do memories plague their ears like flies?
They shake their heads. Dusk brims the shadows.
Summer by summer all stole away,
The starting-gates, the crowd and cries -
All but the unmolesting meadows.
Almanacked, their names live; they
Have slipped their names, and stand at ease,
Or gallop for what must be joy,
And not a fieldglass sees them home,
Or curious stop-watch prophesies :
Only the grooms, and the groom\'s boy,
With bridles in the evening come.
Giacomo got the same figure Derby/Preakness.
I\'m all for showing the best against the best in this game as there is not a lot of that anymore but To come back from that performance in two weeks to run against the boys for the first time definitely scares me.
I thought they would wait until the Belmont as she has tactical speed and doesn\'t seem like distance will be much of an issue for her but most importantly it would give her 5 weeks of spacing and a chance for her new connections to know her better.
Just hope she doesn\'t get knocked out for the rest of the year as it would have been nice to see her face Zenyatta for Horse of the year honors later this year..
Ahmed Zayad and Mark Allen, probably embarrassed by the overwhelming uproar over their attempts to block the entry of RA as well as the absurd reasoning behind their plans, have decided to not enter extra horses to block the entry of the Filly in the Preakness. D. Wayne Lukas, who also said he would enter last place Derby finisher, Flying Private as part of the conspiracy, also has had a change of heart.
An unrepentant Zayat still claims that his threatened actions were not the cause of the uproar but blames RA owner Jesse Jackson for having entered the filly against colts. As if an owner does not have the right to enter a talented horse, and favorite no less, where he feels she belongs.
Apparently, Zayat\'s plot would not have worked anyway since there the is no such written "rule" favoring nominated horses over supplemental entries like RA in the Preakness.
It would be nice if racing got its rules straight.
http://www.drf.com/news/article/103668.html
Bob
Interesting double-standard to me....The NY tabloids slammed MTB\'s owner and Zayat for being so evil as to conspire against the wonder-filly--one paper called them pigs. Outside of the well-written piece by Randy Moss and the opinions on this site, few have taken Jess Jackson to task for the self-aggrandizing act of spending $10 million to grab this filly solely for the purpose of racing her in the Preakness.
So, Mr. Jackson somehow comes out of this looking like the hero and sportsman, when in reality, he is the bully who bought his way into the headlines with a big bankroll. It concerns me that the original owners intended to give RA 5 weeks off and run her back against her own gender. The Sport of Kings didn\'t need this--the Triple Crown and the Derby outcome was a good enough storyline in itself.
I am in agreement with Covell and others on here--running her back in 2 weeks after the top is risky and vain. Let\'s hope she gets through this safely, and that her connections back off after the Preakness and give her proper time off and spacing between races.
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They became successful with the kind of conspiring
> conniving greed they are exhibiting here.
>
> Do we agree on something now P-Dub?
Yes we do!! ( You gave me my first laugh of the day....)
I made my points known on this \"sportsman\" thing previously. Won\'t repeat them.
Before this Preakness thing started, I asked whether anybody thought she would run in the Belmont, thinking the 5 week rest would be sufficient rest. Wouldn\'t that race make much more sense?? Also racing in NY, wouldn\'t that increase her exposure that this guy so obviously craves?
How many of us will watch the Preakness not as a great race, but as a possibility for something going wrong?? I hope she comes out fine, I really do. But this entire episode just smells bad.
The Jackson bashing gets old. Didn\'t IEAH buy 2 made horses in Patena and I Want Revenge just so they could get in the Derby (even if it didn\'t work)? Didn\'t Prince Salman buy War Emblem just to get in the Derby? Do you have any idea how many offers owners get if there\'s even a whiff that they might be interested in selling their good horse?
Agree or disagree with him, Jackson thinks that he sees a super-filly who deserves the opportunity to show exactly what she can do on the track. If she were mine, she wouldn\'t be running in the Preakness, but that\'s really neither here or there because who says I\'m right and he\'s wrong? Hindsight\'s a great thing. Too bad we can\'t buy it beforehand.
It\'s a sad day when we\'re hammering owners for daring to run their horses -- the best against the best -- in the sport of horse racing.
Funny Cide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Jackson bashing gets old. Didn\'t IEAH buy 2
> made horses in Patena and I Want Revenge just so
> they could get in the Derby (even if it didn\'t
> work)? Didn\'t Prince Salman buy War Emblem just
> to get in the Derby?
Buying the horse is not the issue here..Running her back in 2 weeks after a monster performance for seemingly no good reason is the issue. There is still another triple crown race up for grabs with better spacing after this one if that\'s what he covets.
Seems like the loons are getting to quite a few people.The breakdown rate per thousand starters is something minuscule. Whats all this gloom and doom if she runs.Someone posted about a possible outcry from people who don\'t support the game for a quarter. Who cares about the know nothing loons except the politicians trying to score points.
RA and all the others are FAR more likely to get injured in training than in the race on Saturday. If RA has a hidden problem, what makes anyone think she would not get injured with 4 weeks spacing instead of 2 weeks.Some horses recover from big efforts in days,some don\'t recover,ever.In my head I can remember several very promising 3yr olds who were knocked out for good from their huge efffort\'s in Jan/Feb.
Horses run back 2-3 days fairly often(at the lower level mainly) and harness horses run 2 or 3 heats, hours apart, sometimes under tough weather conditions at the Hambo,Brown Jug.Seems the negative -4 have and 2 weeks spacing have some people paranoid.
Not a word of concern from former trainer Wiggins about the short turn around,I wonder why?.All the people who know nothing are talking bad stuff while those with the most expertise are giving her the green light.
Mike
Miff-- and yet, by some amazing coincidence, my record on this is that the ones I predict will go wrong IN SOME WAY (not necessarily break down in a race) is WAY higher than the ordinary rate. Like what, 10 times better? More?
You can have as much of me as you want on this, Mike. If she runs Saturday she makes no more than 2 other starts by November first. Funny Cide, you are welcome to take a piece-- contact me under a real email address with a real name.
Again-- it\'s all a matter of percentages. Horses that run freakishly fast are more likely to go wrong than those that don\'t. Horses that come back quick off efforts are more likely to go wrong than those that don\'t. And horses that come back quick off freakishly fast efforts are extremely likely to go bad, whether or not it is permanent. And this is completely independent of Rachel\'s chance of winning the Preakness.
As I have said before, there is always a reason-- Funny Cide found a few-- because by definition they MUST FIND ONE. Even if it is, horses break down all the time.
I should point out that on average fillies are 3 points slower than colts. Rachel just ran the equivelant of a neg 7 for a 3yo colt in May.
Why aren\'t we complaining about the colts running this Saturday? Every year, we ask them to run again in 2 weeks, with one or more of them coming off big efforts.
I complain about that plenty, in many venues, and have said here that if I was involved with a Derby winner I would probably pass the Preakness. Back when I was involved with Victory Gallop horses weren\'t running as fast (we\'re not going to have that argument here again, if it starts I\'m going to be deleting), and the pattern of breakdowns was not as clear, and it wasn\'t my call anyway. There are patterns and situations where I might try it, but it\'s not great for the horses.
But this is much worse, because she did NOT win the Derby, taking the TC out of play, and because she ran so damn fast, after several other big efforts. If I were managing her she wouldn\'t run again until late July, with the Travers second off a layoff.
Funny Cide, you are welcome to take a piece
-------------
If you tell me what I said that you have a problem with, I\'ll be glad to respond to it.
No problem at all. You said to believe your eyes, easy wins with big figures don\'t cause damage, it\'s always something else. If that\'s true, there is no reason Rachel shouldn\'t have a healthy, happy campaign if she runs back Saturday off that gallop. Right?
Bet me.
We had this same conversation last year-every year someone brings up the 2 week turnaround, and with good reason. It makes more sense for the horses, male or female. A human champion boxer usually works out for at least 6 mo. before a fight, and spends a lengthy time after recuperating. Wish we could ask the horses opinion. We can only hope a good trainer can see what\'s going on and rely on his/her judgment to make the call as to when to run again. Still, I see nothing wrong with a May June July scenario for the Triple Crown.
\"Miff-- and yet, by some amazing coincidence, my record on this is that the ones I predict will go wrong IN SOME WAY (not necessarily break down in a race) is WAY higher than the ordinary rate. Like what, 10 times better? More?\"
JB,
One could say that horses at all levels can go bad \"in some way\"at any time and do all the time.I\'ll bet 20 horses will \"go wrong\" in some way this month at Belmont and some never ran a race at all.
In brief, I won\'t bet on RA\'s demise, thats not racing stuff,imo.Is it a revelation that if she gets a pimple in the coming days, weeks, months she will be retired, thats a prediction tied to a negative figure she ran,you\'re kidding.
Didn\'t you already lose this bet on Smarty, Ghost Zapper,Curlin,IWR,QR Commentator, Bernardini and many other TG big neg figd runners.Retiring to stud does not necessarily qualify as \"gone wrong\" by my count.
So,who are the horses that ran big neg figs,came back short and broke down or went wrong? Surely you are not talking about Barbaro or 8 Belles, they did not run that fast to qualify for this discussion.
Mike
AGreed 100%.
The Jackson bashing makes no sense.
The argument about \"he is a rich old guy so he has nothing better to do than run the horse for enjoyment\" also makes no sense.
The sheikhs are rich and they retire every quality animal they get their hands on.
That argument was used for the owner of Smarty Jones, who was 80 something years old and people said \"at least he won\'t retire the horse because he is old and rich and probably wants to enjoy the horse running\". He retired the horse ASAP.
Jackson is one of the BEST sportsman in this game IMO. What he tried to do with Curlin was great and what he is doing with the filly is great.
Bravo.
In both Barbaro and Eight Belles\' case, as well as I Want Revenge\'s, I made clear comments that the big efforts were likely to cause them a problem in the near future. With Quality Road I was not as definitive (because of the strong 2yo top)but I said he still had to make it to the gate for the Derby (and lo and behold, his problem was not as serious). And you might be the one person on this board with us long enough to remember what I said about Go For Wand in the printed comments we gave out with the hardcopy before the BC.
Yes, horses go bad-- how many times do I have to say this? A much higher percentage go bad when I predict they will do so soon than in general. And it\'s not that I\'m psychic-- there are reasons I point out when I say it.
Again-- it\'s not going to happen every time, there are percentages involved, and there are complicating factors-- time between races, maybe drugs. In the case of Big Brown, he had 5 weeks after the first big one, that may have been a factor in it taking a little longer. And his being able to return after the Belmont may have been helped by the horse (and Desormeaux) taking care of himself in that race.
Nobody is saying they necessarily drop dead in the next start after the big one, though it sometimes happens. They often throw another on the way out.
If I\'m right half the time in predicting horses developing a problem it puts me way ahead of the percentage of healthy horses in the general population that fall apart short term. And in terms of the ones I have opened my mouth about, I\'m way more than 50/50.
The only ones on your list I might have predicted physical problems for that didn\'t go bad within a couple of races after a huge effort could be Smarty, and maybe Curlin. Maybe.
I didn\'t bring up IEAH in my earlier post--but,since you have--at least the case can be made that IEAH knows when to hold \'em and when to fold \'em. I differ with your statement that they bought 2 \"made\" horses--what did Patena ever do as a 3yo? IEAH also bought Stardom Bound last Winter AFTER PASSING ON RACHEL ALEXANDRA due to the bone chip--and had enough sense to back her off the Derby path once she fizzled.
By the way, War Emblem was sold for only $1 million after winning the Illinois Derby--and, to this day--is probably one of the most underwhelming horses ever to win 2 jewels of the Triple Crown (he paid $43 to win in the Derby). Prince Ahmed probably didn\'t buy the horse expecting to win the Derby, and, sadly--only lived a short time after that.
There is a huge difference between buying a colt (with syndication potential far greater than the purchase price) and spending $10 million for a filly. IEAH didn\'t buy into the Triple Crown--they bought into the dream and came up empty--they also let Lanzman retain the right to call the shots on IWR and keep Mullins as trainer. If they had bought Mine That Bird this past week for $5 million and turned him over to Dutrow for the Preakness, I and everyone else would be cutting them to pieces.
The criticism of Jackson here is more about timing and intent--he wants to make a big splash by being in the Preakness and was willing to do whatever was necessary after the Derby. I admire the way in which he campaigned Curlin, but this situation is not the same. I hope that it works out for the filly and that she stays sound, and gets to dance many more dances.
JB,
Kudos really, for as you know the real valuable horses get better vet care than some humans and todays technology is fantastic(nuke scans,etc) Yet you see timebombs vet people don\'t. I\'m sure Go For Wand\'s vet did not think she was sitting on a breakdown.FWIW, Billy Badgett swears it was the \"rock hard\" surface and NYRA\'s lust for the spectacular fast \"wow raw time factor\" that took GFW.
A friend who is an old timer and a present NY trainer will look at the horses in the walking rink and tell me who is likely to go bad and in what area(hock, stifle et al)On the other hand, you are not seeing the horses, just their figs and predicting occasional stuff also.I have to wonder if it\'s all just inevitable without any particular reason.
Mike
Chrifron,
AGreed it is not exactly the same as Curlin.
I would argue that this move is MORE sportsmanlike from Jackson. He didn\'t have much to lose with Curlin if the horse didn\'t like the turf, which he didn\'t. His reputation was sealed already.
Jackson is making a risky move here. Just look at all the gook on this board about hoping Rachel makes it home safely in the Preakness. He has downside here if the horse runs poorly. He will be killed for \"rushing\" a filly to come back in 2 weeks against the colts.
Not to mention that if you are right about the ones that go off form, or get hurt, and you happen to BET against these big favorites every time and are right even 25% of the time, you can make enough money to keep your head above water for an entire year.
I just don\'t get why people debate this. Big efforts will eventually take a toll. How long it takes depends upon the horse, trainer, competition faced, and maybe even a little luck.
Show me a horse. I\'m not even asking for a three year old, or one in a hundred, or even one in 10,000. Just ONE HORSE that has run -4\'s on short rest repeatedly, over and over and over again, for a whole season while the connections just got to gobble up all the money.
You won\'t find a single one. Let alone a 3 year old filly...
Like I said earlier on this board. If RA goes off at 9/5 or so, or anything above odds-on for that matter, she is going to look like the bargain of the year to most people. She already has become a media darling, and she may even bounce and win.
But she won\'t have my money on her. And if she doesn\'t win outright she is just as likely to finish off the board altogether as she is to take second.
Gawd I love the Triple Crown Series...
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chrifron,
Just look at all the gook on this board about hoping Rachel
> makes it home safely in the Preakness. He has
> downside here if the horse runs poorly. He will
> be killed for \"rushing\" a filly to come back in 2
> weeks against the colts.
Nobody is saying she will breakdown, its the long term effect coming back on short rest will have on her. Its a reasonable thought.
Have to say, her presence makes for a fascinating race.
Just curious, anybody watching the NHL playoffs? Great stuff. Watching Wash/Pitt on DVR right now.
\"Big efforts will eventually take a toll\"
... you can go broke before finding\"eventually\"
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Big efforts will eventually take a toll\"
>
>
> ... you can go broke before finding\"eventually\"
Yeah but you can also make a ton when you pick \"eventually\" correctly...
This weekend will probably not be it for Rachel as even with a regression I can see her killing this field..\"Eventually\" will be if she goes into the Belmont after that..
Lost,
Agree but finding \"eventually\" is more an if than a when, chasing 800 pound gorillas.BB went down the tubes in the Belmont, how do find D\'Tara unless you are picking out of a hat?
I would be surprised if she ran back in the Belmont,even if she wins big Sat.
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would be surprised if she ran back in the
> Belmont,even if she wins big Sat.
Funny Miff- I\'d be surprised if she did not come back for the Bel Stks off a big Preakness win! Getting inside of Jess Jackson\'s head here a little is what leads me to think that. Can\'t you just hear the connections... \" Well she came out just fine and now she\'ll get 3 weeks rest. And who\'s going to show up and try to take her on now going 12 panels? We\'d like to join Rags To Riches on that list of filly Belmont winners. Then we\'ll give her some well-earned rest.\" Possible?
Dudley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> miff Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I would be surprised if she ran back in the
> > Belmont,even if she wins big Sat.
>
> Funny Miff- I\'d be surprised if she did not come
> back for the Bel Stks off a big Preakness win!
> Getting inside of Jess Jackson\'s head here a
> little is what leads me to think that. Can\'t you
> just hear the connections... \" Well she came out
> just fine and now she\'ll get 3 weeks rest. And
> who\'s going to show up and try to take her on now
> going 12 panels? We\'d like to join Rags To Riches
> on that list of filly Belmont winners. Then we\'ll
> give her some well-earned rest.\" Possible?
I see it the same way..which is why I will wait to try to beat her then at 2/5..
Agree with Miff that you wait for an opportunity that won\'t happen. But good restraint, if you really don\'t believe she is vulnerable on Saturday.
I think beating her at 4-5 in the Preakness is going to be rewarding enough.
The opportunity may or may not - so I agree- why not take the next one available in 4 days. To each his own. And to think I was going to try to beat her in the Oaks. Justwhistledixie\'s scratch saved me some scratch- I passed the race and marveled at what RA did.