RA and resiliency

[W2G]

Let's assume that Jackson ultimately decides that she is not 100% ready for the Belmont. Is this a knock on the filly, at least in terms of that intangible "greatness" and perhaps the more tangible HOY honor? I think one could look at it that way. Resiliency is a quality that all champions possess.

And what if MTB wins the Belmont and looks good doing it while RA is still "recovering" from her Preakness? I think the whispers of HOY for RA would be few.

[Imriledup]

No, i don't think its a knock. Horses in this day and age are just more fragile. No one is pretending Rachel is some super iron horse that can just keep racing and winning every 2 or 3 weeks. Her not being made of Iron has nothing to do with how great she is when she steps on the track to compete. I'm praying they rest her and not race at Belmont because i want to see her at her best, fully rested and fully sound and ready to rock. I don't want to think about her 10 years from now that she flopped in the Belmont and then got retired. We won't be able to appreciate how great she was if she runs in the Belmont and runs up the track because she wasn't ready.

[joanied]

No, i don't think its a knock. Horses in this day and age are just more fragile. No one is pretending Rachel is some super iron horse that can just keep racing and winning every 2 or 3 weeks. Her not being made of Iron has nothing to do with how great she is when she steps on the track to compete. I'm praying they rest her and not race at Belmont because i want to see her at her best, fully rested and fully sound and ready to rock. I don't want to think about her 10 years from now that she flopped in the Belmont and then got retired. We won't be able to appreciate how great she was if she runs in the Belmont and runs up the track because she wasn't ready.

:ThmbUp: Good post...and with all this hesitation from the Rachel camp...I am beginning to think she shouldn't run in the Belmont. Of course, keeping her in the barn, working her in 50+...isn't going to help them decide :bang: I keep saying this one thing...ship her to Belmont...let her get used to new surrounding...again...let her get used to the surface there...and if they don't get a really good work into her, well...fuhgetaboutit!!

[Imriledup]

:ThmbUp: Good post...and with all this hesitation from the Rachel camp...I am beginning to think she shouldn't run in the Belmont. Of course, keeping her in the barn, working her in 50+...isn't going to help them decide :bang: I keep saying this one thing...ship her to Belmont...let her get used to new surrounding...again...let her get used to the surface there...and if they don't get a really good work into her, well...fuhgetaboutit!!

Jackson probably has someone who's influential in the NY racing scene who has some clout and knows Jackson personally who's in his ear telling him to race at Belmont. Its in Belmont's best interest if Rachel shows up, obviously, i can't imagine that there aren't people contatcing JJ pleading him to come.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why is anyone assuming Rachel wouldn't be near 100% if entered in the Belmont?

[Imriledup]

Why is anyone assuming Rachel wouldn't be near 100% if entered in the Belmont?

Because the connections could think she's close to 100 pct and after the race, we will find out she is not. Trainers and owners love to convince themselves that their horses are made of steel and are 100 pct, "eating up the feed" is the quote you usually hear. We won't know until after the race if she was indeed 100 pct or not regardless of what the connections say. They've had this horse for a few weeks, its not like they've been around her for 2 years and know everything about her.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, don't be offended, but I'll take their "100%" over your "not 100%" any day of the week, simply because they actually stand in the same stall with her, while you sit in front of your keyboard and monitor.

[Imriledup]

Well, don't be offended, but I'll take their "100%" over your "not 100%" any day of the week, simply because they actually stand in the same stall with her, while you sit in front of your keyboard and monitor.

That's pretty funny.

:lol:

[lamboguy]

Why is anyone assuming Rachel wouldn't be near 100% if entered in the Belmont?

if you see her in the belmont she will be 110%, which i suspect she will be!

[joanied]

if you see her in the belmont she will be 110%, which i suspect she will be!

I don't beleive many here would disagree with that :) I know I would be certain of it IF she runs:)

[Marshall Bennett]

I'm not sure if this has been tossed out there for consideration : Many feel , in the best intest of RA , she should sit out the Belmont . The task at hand would be too grueling . Would you all feel the same had she run in the Derby and won . Now we're talking Tripple Crown . Should she go in the Belmont ? After all now , we're looking at what's in the best interest of the horse , her well being , ect . I feel certain with a TC at stake , her best interest would be completely thrown out the window by 95% of you who presently say she shouldn't go, including her connections . All systems would be go .

[46zilzal]

Through the years many an owner, blinded by the accolades, forced a colt to run when they were not 100% often with dire consequences. Miss the days of the great family stables: Whitney's, Mellon's and thankfully the Phipps, where the horse came first second and third before the ego.

It is even harder on the distaff set: they just don't bounce back as readily.

[joanied]

Marshall B....That is a very good point you bring up...it has happened...first one comes to mind for me would be Funny Cide... besides winning the first 2 legs by more lengths than necessary...days before the belmont he worked way, way too fast (I beleive he ran off with Robin, or something)...then the track came up slop, which he couldn't run on...I have no doubt, Tagg would have rather stayed in the barn...
but, I can only speak for myself in saying, if Rachel had won both legs, heading into Belmont with a TC on the line, and I knew (somehow) that she was not 100%...for whatever reason...I would hope she didn't run...that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it:)

[bishlap]

No, i don't think its a knock. Horses in this day and age are just more fragile. No one is pretending Rachel is some super iron horse that can just keep racing and winning every 2 or 3 weeks. Her not being made of Iron has nothing to do with how great she is when she steps on the track to compete. I'm praying they rest her and not race at Belmont because i want to see her at her best, fully rested and fully sound and ready to rock. I don't want to think about her 10 years from now that she flopped in the Belmont and then got retired. We won't be able to appreciate how great she was if she runs in the Belmont and runs up the track because she wasn't ready.
if she doesn't run in the Belmont no one will remember her a yr from now much less 10 yrs.

[Greyfox]

if she doesn't run in the Belmont no one will remember her a yr from now much less 10 yrs.

????The first filly to win the Preakness since 1924 or somewhere around then, and she won't be remembered?????:lol: :lol:

[46zilzal]

????The first filly to win the Preakness since 1924 or somewhere around then, and she won't be remembered?????
The Preakness is hardly the race it once was....

[Greyfox]

The Preakness is hardly the race it once was....

If you believe that, would you suggest dropping it from the Triple Crown?
The Preakness is still a great race.

[Marshall Bennett]

I beleive its still one of the year's best races . I've never understood however , way back when , why they decided on the distance of 1 3/16 mile . Seems to me the logic would be to increase the distance of each TC race by an eighth of a mile , thus making the Preakness 1 3/8 mile . They have run races of that distance there so it isn't a matter of track configuration .