Interesting training thoughts

[WinterTriangle]

in other fields, had some interesting conversations with a horse trainer who trains for 100 mile races, and also a sled dog trainer. I believe one can learn something from any sort of athletic endeavors.

Both said (and they told me this some time ago, but this weekend bore it out) that when Zenyatta came out of the BC Classic, she wasn't tired. That was pretty obvious in the winner's circle, where she was still doing her little dance routine. Asmussen said RA came out of the Woodward tired....something everyone who saw her that day noticed too. Fatigued and look at photos of her at the end of 2009, she had lost weight.

That this was very telling, based on their experiences. In the 100 mile races, it's important to get the horse's body and mind to think there are no limitations, but you also have to make sure they don't HAVE limitations. Both of these trainers said that it is very hard to get an animal to respond after you have "blown them up." So, once you blow up an animal, they usually don't come back like they were before. You have discovered a weakness, and the animal has discovered it too. Both trainers told me that they have *never* had an animal who came back overly tired from a race who responded well after that.

Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree.....both of these people are highly successful in what they do, so I will give them credence.

Not taking anything away from her, she was the most athletic horse, male or female, in 2009. She was in a league of her own......in 2009.

But, as Jackson said after the woodward "She's raced more races in two years than most fillies ever run."
the next day, he said: "he could sense that Rachel Alexandra "was a little tired yesterday" even before the race."

I guess my question is, should we, and do we, always expect more, more, more? Or did they already juice the lemon by the end of 2009?


So----let's talk about horses who have been "blown up", then put out for a long rest/layoff, and how they came back afterwards. How did their next year go? What does history tell us? How did they respond? She was off for 189 days.....and it's not like she was coming back from an injury. Is 189 days enough time to prepare a horse...a hrose with no injuries?

[46zilzal]

One trainer is famous for doing this keeping a horse in training when even the newest tyro can tell they need a rest.

[Rackon]

Not preceisely the same scenario, but I can't help thinking about Sham, and how gutted he was after his effort in the Belmont (certainly a candidate for worst ride ever). Ran his eyeballs out in each TC race and never the same after. And he might have been a TC winner in any other year.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I can only think of one example of a horse that was possibly "blown up". It is an Australian example but it does fit fairly closely

Octagonal was Australian Horse of the Year in his 3YO year in the 1995-1996 season (the Australian horse racing season going from August 1st to July 31st)

As a spring 3YO he raced 6 times for 3 wins including the Cox Plate G1 (generally recognised as Australia's leading weight for age/set weights race)

But it was his Autumn 3YO campaign that won him horse of the year. Raced 5 times for 4 wins which included the 3YO Triple Crown. The thing about this was that this was considered at the time to be a very strong 3YO crop and this proved to be very true. In each leg of the Triple Crown that autumn it was a very closely fought battle between Octagonal, Saintly (who won the Cox Plate and Melbourne Cups the next season) and Nothin' Leica Dane. They were tiring races. Octagonal somehow managed to find a way to get in front on the line each time. There was even a 4th horse in the mix called Filante who went on to do some great things the following seasons but he was not fully mature at 3YO

Anyways after his 3YO season Octagonal spelled for 133 days and came back for his spring 4YO campaign. It was a disastrous campaign. From his 7 races he ran 6th, 7th, 5th, 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th. It seemed he was maybe finished and the exertions of his 3YO season had tired him out for good. He was spelled for 105 days and came back as an autumn 4YO. However this time he was back to his 2YO and 3YO form. He won 3 from 5 and finished 2nd the other two races

People generally believe that his 3YO season exhausted him for his spring 4YO season and he needed a 2nd spell to get over this

One sidenote to Octagonal was he had a racing style somewhat similar to Zenyatta in that he came from the back of the field. He won 14 races in his career and 10 of these wins were by 0.5 of a length or less. His biggest winning margin ever was 2.8 lengths.

[joanied]

This is an interesting thread...I would like to think about other horses that fit into it...
but in the case of Rachel...it will proove the point of this thread if they rest her some more and she comes back breathing fire again...IMO, they kinda made a mistake resting her at the track...a short rest, say 30 days, on the track would be OK, but to give a horse 6 months rest and keep her at the track, IMO is not the way to go....I don't care how many times she was out of her stall and in the round pen...they should have taken her to the farm...IMO, 2 months is a grassy pasture (put up at night) would have done her a world of good...just let her be a horse for a while. I wonder just how many hours she spent in her stall over those 6 months...too many, I'd bet...muscles get weak, and it sure can't do her mind much good.

[Space Monkey]

Lots of good insight here. Enjoyed your post Seabiscuit and Joanied you make a good point about her layoff being too long and the muscles getting weak. I can see that if you believe that fatigue was her only problem after the Woodward.

[Space Monkey]

Rackon the worst decision was running Sham in the Belmont, not the ride.

[WinterTriangle]

IMO, they kinda made a mistake resting her at the track...a short rest, say 30 days, on the track would be OK, but to give a horse 6 months rest and keep her at the track, IMO is not the way to go....I don't care how many times she was out of her stall and in the round pen...they should have taken her to the farm...IMO, 2 months is a grassy pasture (put up at night) would have done her a world of good...just let her be a horse for a while.

100,000 % agree~

If you read about how she behaved in the round pen, how much she enjoyed rolling around, being a horse, it makes you realize just what you said.

Most people who spend time around real horses see this.

What possible reasoning could there be for keeping her on the track...... goodness knows she deserved a real vacation?

[bisket]

there are many people that share your view about rachel staying at the track all that time jonied.
see the only thing about this winter is rachel won the woodward. i would give this angle by these trainers more credence if rachel lost the woodward because it makes a big difference. i also think horses take their cues many times from the people that care for them. if the people around rachel were upset after the woodward and she lost giving her all than i think what your refering to could happen. i just don't think it fits here.
now sham fits this angle because everything that i just stated happened to him in the belmont.

[WinterTriangle]

Well, I started the topic because I could not figure out why they kept her at the track.

Comment from a friend: "In a stall at the track, loosing fitness---- instead of running in a pasture?"

Geez. Silly people afraid of the insurance company"

It still makes no sense to me.

[breezing]

What possible reasoning could there be for keeping her on the track...... goodness knows she deserved a real vacation?
only two reasons i can think of:

1) fear
2) stall rest because of injury

i'm more inclined to go with #1, i don't think they wanted her out of their sight and complete control. i also think she's a hot little filly and they don't have a clue right now as to how to read her.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You can disagree with the premise, I don't wish that to be the point, but here's a #3 reason:

She was gutted, absolutely gutted after the Woodward. Obviously, it is good horsemanship to nurse her back to health before considering sending her out for a break.

Then again, the Apple Blossom was always their next important goal after the Woodward. Not a decision made in January or February, but in October or November, heck, maybe even September or August.

By the time she had recovered fully from the strenuous race, the amount of time that she would be turned out would be minimal if she were to adhere to the schedule tentatively formed to bring her back in time for a prep and then a start in the Apple Blossom.

Do you turn her out for a brief time or do you just leave her on a bit of stall rest and make the transition to a return to racing that much easier given the time frame?

Just an alternate theory to chew on since we seem perfectly willing to accept theories about undisclosed traumatic injuries... try not to take aim at the messenger.

[andicap]

For what its worth, Ragozin's book, "The Odds Must Be Crazy" has several examples of good horses who ran out of their heads one day -- for a reason or another -- I mean they ran the best race of their life by far. And they never quite returned to that form tho sometimes they came close enough to still be useful. But it would take a while for them to recover any semblance of their old form. That one race took so much out of them they just "blew up."


Williamsburg on a muddy track in the Withers was one example he gave and Virginia Rapids (don't recall which race) was another. I dont recall how much rest those horses got after their big race, but I don't think it was especially long. I also don't recall if they had especially arduous campaigns prior to their blow up.

[joanied]

Rackon the worst decision was running Sham in the Belmont, not the ride.

:ThmbUp: And the fact his jock was told to go with Secretariat, no matter what:bang:

[Show Me the Wire]

You can disagree with the premise, I don't wish that to be the point, but here's a #3 reason:

She was gutted, absolutely gutted after the Woodward. Obviously, it is good horsemanship to nurse her back to health before considering sending her out for a break.

Then again, the Apple Blossom was always their next important goal after the Woodward. Not a decision made in January or February, but in October or November, heck, maybe even September or August.

By the time she had recovered fully from the strenuous race, the amount of time that she would be turned out would be minimal if she were to adhere to the schedule tentatively formed to bring her back in time for a prep and then a start in the Apple Blossom.

Do you turn her out for a brief time or do you just leave her on a bit of stall rest and make the transition to a return to racing that much easier given the time frame?

Just an alternate theory to chew on since we seem perfectly willing to accept theories about undisclosed traumatic injuries... try not to take aim at the messenger.

All you say is true. Especially what you say about the Woodward and the much needed rest. However, it is easier to watch over an injury. limit the flow of information, and prevent further by keeping the horse in a stall, in a restricted access area.

On a farm there is more open access, less supervision and less control over information and more opportunity to aggravate the injury, while turned out.

[joanied]

You can disagree with the premise, I don't wish that to be the point, but here's a #3 reason:

She was gutted, absolutely gutted after the Woodward. Obviously, it is good horsemanship to nurse her back to health before considering sending her out for a break.

Then again, the Apple Blossom was always their next important goal after the Woodward. Not a decision made in January or February, but in October or November, heck, maybe even September or August.

By the time she had recovered fully from the strenuous race, the amount of time that she would be turned out would be minimal if she were to adhere to the schedule tentatively formed to bring her back in time for a prep and then a start in the Apple Blossom.

Do you turn her out for a brief time or do you just leave her on a bit of stall rest and make the transition to a return to racing that much easier given the time frame?

Just an alternate theory to chew on since we seem perfectly willing to accept theories about undisclosed traumatic injuries... try not to take aim at the messenger.

Let's forget about anyone's theories about 'undisclosed injuries'...if that filly had any type of injury, does anyone really think over the last 6 months or so it wouldn't have leaked out?

But...they had more than enough time to send her to the farm...give her about 2 weeks down time at the track...sure she was gutted after the Woodward, all the more reason not to keep her at the track...after 10 days-2 wks., send her to the farm for some real R&R.
Again, there is no way a horse that needs as much down time as she did will get it while in her stall on the track...not physically and not mentally.

Someone mentioned they didn't want to loose 'sight' of her...as if turning her out on the farm means no one would be looking out for her...plus the fact that Blasi, Asmussen, Jackson himself would have no problem going to the farm once a week to see her.

It is what it is...a dumb decision on their part.

[FenceBored]

All you say is true. Especially what you say about the Woodward and the much needed rest. However, it is easier to watch over an injury. limit the flow of information, and prevent further by keeping the horse in a stall, in a restricted access area.

On a farm there is more open access, less supervision and less control over information and more opportunity to aggravate the injury, while turned out.

Really? You think Jackson would have less control at his own farm in Versailles than he does on NYRA's property? Please, that's just silly talk.

[Show Me the Wire]

Really? You think Jackson would have less control at his own farm in Versailles than he does on NYRA's property? Please, that's just silly talk.

I would hope so for the integrity of the game. I hope the backside is more secure than a farm. Also, his farm doesn't have room to turn out horses? Horses running loose in a large pasture have more opportunity to injure themselves or aggravate an existing injury.

Common sense also, tells me if she is in the stall, the less likely people would have to observe any hints of a soft tissue injury.

The only silly talk I did today was to go along with your idea that Zardana may be stiffed in the AB.

[CincyHorseplayer]

It's a tough read all round.She wasn't great as a 2yo so the "prodigy/burnout" theory is off IMO.She raced into peak form last year,at least based on how much better and faster she got.If the Woodward is the suspected blowup race that took her down and out I'd have to say that is wrong.The Preakness was a longer race and was a more adventurous trip than the Woodward.But she bounced back well.I agree with Joanied that she should have been on the farm just being a horse,but my interpretation of her past performance history is that she is a slow starter as far as form cycle is concerned.The sporadic training at the rainy Fair Grounds didn't help either.But I expect she can reach top form again.

[FenceBored]

I would hope so for the integrity of the game. I hope the backside is more secure than a farm. Also, his farm doesn't have room to turn out horses? Horses running loose in a large pasture have more opportunity to injure themselves or aggravate an existing injury.

Common sense also, tells me if she is in the stall, the less likely people would have to observe any hints of a soft tissue injury.

Hmm, on the backside of Saratoga's training track anyone licensed to be there can come in, whether Jackson wants them near Rachel or not. On his farm, only those people he wants on the place are allowed on the place. Yes, I can see how he has less control at his own farm. :rolleyes:

It would be a pretty piss poor farm if they didn't have the ability to handle layups and post-ops, which would certainly give them the ability to handle anything Jackson wanted for Rachel. And if his own farm couldn't, I'm sure Lane's End would have been more than happy to do it. Add to that the best equine hospitals in the country for that mythical injury you keep imagining and it would be a no brainer.

The only silly talk I did today was to go along with your idea that Zardana may be stiffed in the AB.

Hey, I was only taking a page out of yours, and Kimsus's, book with that one. Why don't you want to admit that it's a possibility? It's not the least bit possible?
<Ah HAHAHAHAHA cough cough>

[joanied]

All you say is true. Especially what you say about the Woodward and the much needed rest. However, it is easier to watch over an injury. limit the flow of information, and prevent further by keeping the horse in a stall, in a restricted access area.

On a farm there is more open access, less supervision and less control over information and more opportunity to aggravate the injury, while turned out.

Then you've never been on any of the elite farms in Kentucky. There isn't a horse on those farms that doesn't have 24/7 protection...and no one gets onto the grounds unless they belong there. Jackson could have sent her with her groom and any amount of people he wanted to send with her, including a body guard...beleive me, a rabbit wouldn't have gotten within touching distance of Rachel if she'd been on his farm. Daily reports would be sent...in fact, probaly several times a day...and they could have gone to see her any old day they wanted to...hell, Jackson could have stayed on the farm too.
You continually bring up this injury...what's with that:confused: ... there is no injury...or was there an injury...I don't care who you are, you have a horse like Rachel and sooner or later, if there is an injury...it's gonna become backstretch gossip, if nothing else...as far as I know, there hasn't been any hint of gossip about her being injured :bang:

And whether you realize it or not...horse being confined have a greater chance of injuring themselves that being turned out everyday in a big pasture...you have a horse confined too many hours a day, that is bored, feeling good, whatever...and it can very easily injure himself...hell, when was it, a few years ago, crap, can't think of this fillies name now:blush: ...she was nominated for a Sprint Championship...anyway, they wound up euthanizing her...broke a leg when she kicked the stall wall...countless horses have done that...and countless more will.
Horses are much safer in a big pasture, where, unless they are crazy, they will take very good care of themselves.

[breezing]

Nashoba's Key - had won 8 of 10.

edited to add: isn't RA supposed to be a bit of a handful, temperment-wise? nashoba's key was not a little kitten, was not the nicest horse and would try and take a piece of you if you got to close. but i digress......

[bisket]

nashoba's key jonied

[Show Me the Wire]

Oh please, people make it sound like she would be wandering around on the backside where any licensed person would have access to her. On the backside she is in a barn probably only occupied by Asmussen, where you would be stopped immediately by an employee or a security guard if you tried to have access to Rachel.

I would hope Asmussen would have night security too, for such a valuable asset, because as FenceBored pointed the barn is located on access restricted property.

It would be a lot easier to sneak into one of those secure farms. And horses get hurt in pastures all the time.

Btw joanied there was a rumor printed by DeJulio based on backstrtetch gossip. At least that fits part of your criteria.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I'm convinced Ghostyapper snuck in and gave her a Rufy.

[joanied]

Nashoba's Key - had won 8 of 10.

edited to add: isn't RA supposed to be a bit of a handful, temperment-wise? nashoba's key was not a little kitten, was not the nicest horse and would try and take a piece of you if you got to close. but i digress......

breezing & da-bisket....:) thanks so much...man, it was driving me nuts I couldn't recall her name...and she was one of my favorites...broke my heart when she died. I know it's costly, but sometimes it pays to pad the walls of a stall, all it takes is padding about 2' high.

breezing...so many of them would just as soon take a chunk outta you than anything else:D ...we forgive them this nasty little habit;)

[Show Me the Wire]

I'm convinced Ghostyapper snuck in and gave her a Rufy.

:lol: Good one. Possibly less dangerous than sponging.

When I say sneak in, I don't mean into the main barn, just onto the vast property, with a good pair of binoculars. long range lens, etc. Lots easier to gather information.

[joanied]

Oh please, people make it sound like she would be wandering around on the backside where any licensed person would have access to her. On the backside she is in a barn probably only occupied by Asmussen, where you would be stopped immediately by an employee or a security guard if you tried to have access to Rachel.

I would hope Asmussen would have night security too, for such a valuable asset, because as FenceBored pointed the barn is located on access restricted property.

It would be a lot easier to sneak into one of those secure farms. And horses get hurt in pastures all the time.

Btw joanied there was a rumor printed by DeJulio based on backstrtetch gossip. At least that fits part of your criteria.

Ya know, if someone, anyone, wants to do harm to something...they will find a way...on the track, on the farm, hell...even on military bases in America...
the fact remains, if they had chose to lay her up on the farm, her security would have been tight as a drum.

Yes, horses get hurt in pastures, and in stalls, and on vans, and in trailers...so on and so on.

Ah, yes, I do recall
DeJuilo saying something to that effect, way back when...and I think by now everyone knows it was unfounded...which kinda makes my point, show me the wire...if she has an injury...Bruno would say something, don't ya think?

:)

[bisket]

nashoba's key jonied
shows my typing talent... 3 words in 2 minutes

[Show Me the Wire]

Why do you say everyone knows it is unfounded? Is it because the connections say she isn't" Yet they cancelled her next prestigious race.

I believe the quick hook proves there is more than smoke to the story.

Facts:

Rachel runs a 104 beyer off an extra long layoff[
Rachel loses by 3/4 lengths, while beating the rest of the field by 10 plus lengths
Rachel loses to a recent stakes winner, that has never lost on dirt
Rachel cleaned out her feed tub after the race, which as you know is a very good thing
Rachel's connections say she is happy and healthy


It seems the signals given by this special horse are saying I am ready to move forward. Yet, with all these positives the connections very quickly deem Rachel would not be ready for her next race.

The actions of the connections, really total up to a "Go Figure moment".

[CincyHorseplayer]

:lol: Good one. Possibly less dangerous than sponging.

When I say sneak in, I don't mean into the main barn, just onto the vast property, with a good pair of binoculars. long range lens, etc. Lots easier to gather information.

Somebody had to put some fun into this.We are way too serious for our own good!!!!!Put us all in a room with the races and we'd crank out some dough.Not to mention have more than few laughs.;)

[FenceBored]

Oh please, people make it sound like she would be wandering around on the backside where any licensed person would have access to her. On the backside she is in a barn probably only occupied by Asmussen, where you would be stopped immediately by an employee or a security guard if you tried to have access to Rachel.

I would hope Asmussen would have night security too, for such a valuable asset, because as FenceBored pointed the barn is located on access restricted property.

It would be a lot easier to sneak into one of those secure farms. And horses get hurt in pastures all the time.


Any security officer in her barn hired by Jackson could also be there at the farm with her too.

I don't know why they preferred to keep her at the track (unless Asmussen's the control freak), but it wasn't security.

And information control, tell me how that's tighter on a backstretch?


Btw joanied there was a rumor printed by DeJulio based on backstrtetch gossip. At least that fits part of your criteria.

Yeah, wasn't it something about the unicorn she was working in company with sticking Rachel in the butt with its horn?

[joanied]

shows my typing talent... 3 words in 2 minutes

:lol: sorry...but that's funny, bisket:jump:

[FenceBored]

Why do you say everyone knows it is unfounded? Is it because the connections say she isn't" Yet they cancelled her next prestigious race.

I believe the quick hook proves there is more than smoke to the story.

Facts:



Rachel runs a 104 beyer off an extra long layoff[

Rachel loses by 3/4 lengths, while beating the rest of the field by 10 plus lengths

Rachel loses to a recent stakes winner, that has never lost on dirt

Rachel cleaned out her feed tub after the race, which as you know is a very good thing

Rachel's connections say she is happy and healthy

It seems the signals given by this special horse are saying I am ready to move forward. Yet, with all these positives the connections very quickly deem Rachel would not be ready for her next race.

The actions of the connections, really total up to a "Go Figure moment".


The winner only got a 101 Beyer. Now you've got 2nd place horses getting bigger Beyers than the winners. :rolleyes:

[Show Me the Wire]

..............................................

Yeah, wasn't it something about the unicorn she was working in company with sticking Rachel in the butt with its horn?

No not really.

[joanied]

Why do you say everyone knows it is unfounded? Is it because the connections say she isn't" Yet they cancelled her next prestigious race.

I believe the quick hook proves there is more than smoke to the story.

Facts:

Rachel runs a 104 beyer off an extra long layoff[
Rachel loses by 3/4 lengths, while beating the rest of the field by 10 plus lengths
Rachel loses to a recent stakes winner, that has never lost on dirt
Rachel cleaned out her feed tub after the race, which as you know is a very good thing
Rachel's connections say she is happy and healthy
It seems the signals given by this special horse are saying I am ready to move forward. Yet, with all these positives the connections very quickly deem Rachel would not be ready for her next race.

The actions of the connections, really total up to a "Go Figure moment".

Ok, I'll give in...it is kinda strange and a classic "Go Figure Moment"...maybe even a "DUH" moment... who knows, SMTW...maybe in a week or so, they'll announce that she's rippin' up the track and go on to the AP afterall...I guess it's really impossible to know what in hell is goin' on :faint:

But, still...them saying she's happy & healthy doesn't mean she is 100% fit...and they simply don't want to take a chance on saying they will go and then a week out, saying she isn't ready yet...that'd be worse, IMO, for the fans & Cella. it'd be way cool if a week out, they say she's 100% fit and ready to go.

We'll have to hold our breath and wait...and even that sucks:)

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored,

You get the point. It was a very good speed figure off a layoff. Do you deny that? Do you deny all the things I llisted are all positives, which show a horse is ready to move forward?

If not then you must be of the postition, Asmussen had her fully cranked and that was the best effort she is going to give, as some other posters have summized.

Would you rather discuss substance or fantasy? I know the answer, but I had to ask.

[joanied]

Somebody had to put some fun into this.We are way too serious for our own good!!!!!Put us all in a room with the races and we'd crank out some dough.Not to mention have more than few laughs.;)

Two somebodies just did...

Fencebored
"Yeah, wasn't it something about the unicorn she was working in company with sticking Rachel in the butt with its horn?"

bisket
"shows my typing talent... 3 words in 2 minutes"


Cincy...we'd tear the grandstand down:jump:

[breezing]

breezing...so many of them would just as soon take a chunk outta you than anything else:D ...we forgive them this nasty little habit;)

not where i ride, one of the gals (human) bites back :lol: this is a h/j barn so that type of behavior from a horse is not tolerated.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Two somebodies just did...

Fencebored
"Yeah, wasn't it something about the unicorn she was working in company with sticking Rachel in the butt with its horn?"

bisket
"shows my typing talent... 3 words in 2 minutes"


Cincy...we'd tear the grandstand down:jump:


You know it.I'm a beast on track.If anyone says "break a leg" I smack whatever is in their hands on the floor!!This essentially is a fun game and some just don't get it.Too bad for them.Let's raise the rafters Joanied!!!

[Show Me the Wire]

You know it.I'm a beast on track.If anyone says "break a leg" I smack whatever is in their hands on the floor!!This essentially is a fun game and some just don't get it.Too bad for them.Let's raise the rafters Joanied!!!

The break a leg root is disgusting. The fun thing is to place your finger on the monitor and stop the horse.

[WinterTriangle]

Well the conspiracy theories abound. I don't think she has any injury, and I also don't think it was a bad prep race.

I just don't understand why she wasn't turned out, and why all the changes (figure 8 bridle, riding instructions to Calvin). Why the figure 8...keeps the mouth shut and prevents horse from avoiding the bit.......IMHO, an issue better resolved by TRAINING? Esp when you supposedly have the very best trainer.

The newest conspiracy theory is they made all these changes so she didn't win....thus avoiding the AP. :D

I don't believe, or have, any conspiracy theories. I do think that they should have know RA wouldn't be ready, and Jackson should have just saved Cella all the trouble he went thru ----because it all just filters down to vast inconveniences for the fans.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Ok, I'll give in...it is kinda strange and a classic "Go Figure Moment"...maybe even a "DUH" moment... who knows, SMTW...maybe in a week or so, they'll announce that she's rippin' up the track and go on to the AP afterall...I guess it's really impossible to know what in hell is goin' on :faint:

But, still...them saying she's happy & healthy doesn't mean she is 100% fit...and they simply don't want to take a chance on saying they will go and then a week out, saying she isn't ready yet...that'd be worse, IMO, for the fans & Cella. it'd be way cool if a week out, they say she's 100% fit and ready to go.

We'll have to hold our breath and wait...and even that sucks:)

You may get a few eye rolls for this post and even though I don't really think that it is probable, I agree that it is entirely possible. I firmly believe that Asmussen was ready to head to Oaklawn and Mr. Jackson made an abrupt decision. I can't speculate as to why - perhaps he isn't the sportsman that I have been defending even though that I do think that he is a creep.

But, I don't think much of what is said publicly can be taken very seriously and I do think that this decision was of a hasty nature and for those reasons, I wouldn't be totally shocked if after a week or so of forward momentum, Jackson reasserts himself as the "misunderstood sportsman".

[FenceBored]

FenceBored,

You get the point. It was a very good speed figure off a layoff. Do you deny that? Do you deny all the things I llisted are all positives, which show a horse is ready to move forward?

:D Show, you've been watching "A Few Good Men" again, haven't you? DO YOU DENY IT? :lol:

If not then you must be of the postition, Asmussen had her fully cranked and that was the best effort she is going to give, as some other posters have summized.

As ever, you ask the wrong questions and thus arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Would you rather discuss substance or fantasy? I know the answer, but I had to ask.

When anyone is corresponding with you then we all know that half of the exchange is fantasy. And since the only thing constant in the equation is you, well ...

------------------

I've said it once (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=854611&postcount=55) but I'll say it again, just for you, in extended fashion, as we're such close buds.


Immediately after the New Orleans Ladies I was only slightly bothered. Overall a good effort off the layoff. The loss didn't throw me, I made that position clear before the race. Losing to Zardana didn't throw me, that was one of the branches on Team Zenyatta's strategy tree of battlespace preparation (of course, I laughed my tuckus off when I found out what it cost them). No, the only thing that bothered me about the stretch duel was how little Rachel seemed to respond to what Calvin was asking. As the hours passed and I thought some more, I began formulating questions and comparisons to be evaluated.

The question I settled on is: "Where is Rachel in relation to her performances in 2009?" And the place to start the investigation? Why, the selfsame parish we saw her run in this past Saturday.

Data: =============================

Here's Rachel's performance on March 14, 2009 in the Fair Grounds Oaks:


qlY6NnkLCKA

Chart: http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbPDFChartPlus.cfm?RACE=6&BorP=P&TID=FG&CTRY=USA&DT=03/14/2009&DAY=D&STYLE=EQB
(http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbPDFChartPlus.cfm?RACE=6&BorP=P&TID=FG&CTRY=USA&DT=03/14/2009&DAY=D&STYLE=EQB)
Weather (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNEW/2009/3/14/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA) on March 14, 2009.


And Saturday's performance in the New Orleans Ladies:

aHX49xOYD5A

Chart: http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbPDFChartPlus.cfm?RACE=10&BorP=P&TID=FG&CTRY=USA&DT=03/13/2010&DAY=D&STYLE=EQB

Weather (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNEW/2010/3/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA) on March 14, 2009.

Analysis: ===========================

Things to note:




Track condition Sloppy last year; Fast this year
How RA finished: eased final 1/16th last year (Calvin standing in the stirrups with one hand off the reins gesturing to the crowd); stretch duel this year.
Final time (raw): 1:43.55 last year; 1:43.55 this year.
Beyers: 103 last year; 100 this year.
Wind speed/direction: calm last year; 11mph W (headwind on backstretch) this year.
After this first examination, I had the answer. Rachel on Saturday was not even up to her own standards of mid-March 2009. Even allowing for the possibility that the headwind on the backstretch made an impact on Rachel's stamina Saturday, there's a high probability that her early 3 year old self would have beaten her 4 year old self. Under those circumstances, and remembering the words of a learned man ("I'll start by saying it is probably not very wise to assume a horse is running the best she ever will in February and March of her 3yo season." -- cj (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=855605&postcount=22)), I don't think that 27 days is enough to get her back to her mid-summer 2009 level, i.e. near 100%. They've got them a little bit of work to do. And, as I think a reasonable person must agree, beating RA when she is at or better than her mid-summer 2009 level is what Zenyatta supporters should want more than beating a non-tuned up version, unless they've gone completely Captain Ahab on us. Therefore, it is not in the best interests of Rachel Alexandra, Team Zenyatta, and the racing world (US division) generally to continue to promote a "race for the ages" when you already know that one of the main rivals will not be at a competitive level to make it the race it should be. Better to pull the plug on it now.

We return you now to your regularly scheduled anti-(Asmussen, Jackson, Rachel, dirt, "East Coast bias", etc., etc. etc.) ravings from our usual suspects. Take it away "Show Me the Wire" and "Kimsus."

[jonnielu]

Well, I started the topic because I could not figure out why they kept her at the track.

Comment from a friend: "In a stall at the track, loosing fitness---- instead of running in a pasture?"

Geez. Silly people afraid of the insurance company"

It still makes no sense to me.



The loss makes more sense though. Not enough time to get the horse ready because they still needed to start with a 3 month real vacation.

jdl

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored:

Nice avoidance. A lot of wasted bandwidth. I am not anti-asmussen, anti-Rachel or anti-East coast.

The question I asked is the correct and same question, that is being asked even in articles.

Why wouldn't Rachel be ready after all the postive signals given off?

I asked, if you deny that Rachel is ready to move forward off the prep, is it because you believe there is no room to move forward, because Asmussen had her cranked.

The question is a two part qusetion to you. Of course only asking the second part would be wrong, as you said, without asking the first part.

Joanied had no problems understanding and replying to the first part of the question, why do you?

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored:

Since you have a penchant for spinning, I want to clarify. I took Jackson to task for skipping the B.C, as I am of the opinion it is championship day and the champions should be at the dance. That is far afield from being anti someone or hating someone.

Now after the prep, I understand why the connections wanted to skip the B.C. and in my opinion it had nothing to do with the surface.

As many astute posters observed the Woodward gutted Rachel and the B.C. was to close in time to the Woodward.

If you wait long enough the answer becomes clear, and the future will clarify why the connections decided to skip the AB so quickly after the prep.

[Tom]

She had a 6 month layoff, and they tried to hold her back when she wanted to run. She earns a good figure, buries the field behind her and just missed to a horse fully cranked up and a proven monster on dirt.

Gee, does she suck! :rolleyes::lol:

[born2ride]

It's a tough read all round.She wasn't great as a 2yo so the "prodigy/burnout" theory is off IMO.She raced into peak form last year,at least based on how much better and faster she got.If the Woodward is the suspected blowup race that took her down and out I'd have to say that is wrong.The Preakness was a longer race and was a more adventurous trip than the Woodward.But she bounced back well.I agree with Joanied that she should have been on the farm just being a horse,but my interpretation of her past performance history is that she is a slow starter as far as form cycle is concerned.The sporadic training at the rainy Fair Grounds didn't help either.But I expect she can reach top form again.
I agree with you and joanied in that having time off on a farm would have done her wonders. The thing that strikes me most about this is the story that was run on Shepard (not sure if I'm spelling his name right) who was up for TOY. He took horses just as are being described here back to his farm, turned them out, let them be horses, then started training them on his farm and he's notorious for being able to "rehab" horses that are tired/burned out.

I do think Rachel is a little slow to get her form back, and given the proper amount of time to train I think she can regain her top form.

[FenceBored]

FenceBored:

Nice avoidance. A lot of wasted bandwidth. I am not anti-asmussen, anti-Rachel or anti-East coast.

The question I asked is the correct and same question, that is being asked even in articles.

Why wouldn't Rachel be ready after all the postive signals given off?

I asked, if you deny that Rachel is ready to move forward off the prep, is it because you believe there is no room to move forward, because Asmussen had her cranked.

The question is a two part qusetion to you. Of course only asking the second part would be wrong, as you said, without asking the first part.

Joanied had no problems understanding and replying to the first part of the question, why do you?

You need to look into those reading comprehension courses at your local community college, bucko.

Yes, she can move forward off that race, BUT not enough to be 100% in 27 days.

There, is that simple enough for you? Probably not, so I'll try again:

Race good not great. Horse not as good as she was last year. Could be in time. Will not be as good as last year in one month. Need more time than that. Guy who train her say this two months ago. You should take what he said to heart. :ThmbUp:

Is that better.

[FenceBored]

FenceBored:

Since you have a penchant for spinning, I want to clarify. I took Jackson to task for skipping the B.C, as I am of the opinion it is championship day and the champions should be at the dance. That is far afield from being anti someone or hating someone.

Now after the prep, I understand why the connections wanted to skip the B.C. and in my opinion it had nothing to do with the surface.

As many astute posters observed the Woodward gutted Rachel and the B.C. was to close in time to the Woodward.

If you wait long enough the answer becomes clear, and the future will clarify why the connections decided to skip the AB so quickly after the prep.

Show,

You're the one who's spinning. Your constant carping ("Why doesn't he do this? Why isn't she running there? Is there some undisclosed injury? Why is Jackson ducking?) leads intelligent readers to the conclusion that no matter what he says, does, or proposes, you will be there with some stupid nitpicking criticism that says more about you than him.

And your "new" theory on "WHY JACKSON SKIPPED THE BC" is ludicrous. Jackson said in MAY that she wasn't going to Santa Anita. For those who can read a calendar that's close to 4 months before the Woodward. Do you really think anyone not already in your little conspiracy clique is going to buy that Jackson knew prior to the Preakness that the Woodward was going to gut her, so that she wouldn't be in condition to run in the BC? Oh, I get it, he PLANNED for the Woodward to gut her. :eek: :lol:

[FenceBored]

She had a 6 month layoff, and they tried to hold her back when she wanted to run. She earns a good figure, buries the field behind her and just missed to a horse fully cranked up and a proven monster on dirt.

Gee, does she suck! :rolleyes::lol:

It's not a question of whether she buried that field. It's a question of where she is in relation to where she was at her peak. Using the Beyers for comparison, that 100 is 8-16 points lower (4-8 lengths slower) than her G1 wins from last year. It's lower than any figure she's earned since the Martha Washington (her first of the in-training layoff as a 3 yo).

Looking at her raw times for 1 1/16m, estimating the 8.5 timing for longer races (dividing the last 8th by 2 for 9f; dividing the last 3/16ths by 3 for the 9.5f race which should actually gives us slower times than the actual in most cases):


1:43.08 - Golden Rod [fastest 2yo F dirt time of 2008]

1:43.55 - F G Oaks
1:43.35 - Fantasy
1:42.79 - Ky Oaks
1:42.24 - Preakness
1:39.97 - Mother Goose
1:40.75 - Haskell
1:41.89 - Woodward

1:43.65 - New Orleans Ladies (est. 0.10 secs for .75 len?)

That ... is ... the ... slowest ... raw ... time ... she ... has ... ever ... run ... 8.5f.

Sucks? No.
Ready to face the toughest challenge of her career to date off that race? No.

[Kimsus]

Show,

You're the one who's spinning. Your constant carping ("Why doesn't he do this? Why isn't she running there? Is there some undisclosed injury? Why is Jackson ducking?) leads intelligent readers to the conclusion that no matter what he says, does, or proposes, you will be there with some stupid nitpicking criticism that says more about you than him.

And your "new" theory on "WHY JACKSON SKIPPED THE BC" is ludicrous. Jackson said in MAY that she wasn't going to Santa Anita. For those who can read a calendar that's close to 4 months before the Woodward. Do you really think anyone not already in your little conspiracy clique is going to buy that Jackson knew prior to the Preakness that the Woodward was going to gut her, so that she wouldn't be in condition to run in the BC? Oh, I get it, he PLANNED for the Woodward to gut her. :eek: :lol:

Why do you believe him now after what happened last weekend?

[FenceBored]

Why do you believe him now after what happened last weekend?

Fishsticks like crawdads, no gumbo, but brie is better by the sea in capris. Make sense?

[Show Me the Wire]

Show,

You're the one who's spinning. Your constant carping ("Why doesn't he do
And your "new" theory on "WHY JACKSON SKIPPED THE BC" is ludicrous. Jackson said in MAY that she wasn't going to Santa Anita. For those who can read a calendar that's close to 4 months before the Woodward. Do you really think anyone not already in your little conspiracy clique is going to buy that Jackson knew prior to the Preakness that the Woodward was going to gut her, so that she wouldn't be in condition to run in the BC? Oh, I get it, he PLANNED for the Woodward to gut her. :eek: :lol:

You act like I am the only one asking the question, "Why wouldn't Rachel be ready?" It seems to be a very popular question, in all types of media.

I will acknowledge, I am usuaully ahead of the curve on many topics. For example, I was the first to bring up the topic of the entire break from racing taking place in a stall on the backside. It seems some other posters are now questioning why no turn out too.

It may upset you that I ask the question first, but this is a discusion board and I bring up topics to discuss.

If you don't like the topics, don't particiapte.

[FenceBored]

You act like I am the only one asking the question, "Why wouldn't Rachel be ready?" It seems to be a very popular question, in all types of media.

I will acknowledge, I am usuaully ahead of the curve on many topics. For example, I was the first to bring up the topic of the entire break from racing taking place in a stall on the backside. It seems some other posters are now questioning why no turn out too.

It may upset you that I ask the question first, but this is a discusion board and I bring up topics to discuss.

If you don't like the topics, don't particiapte.

Now we've moved on to delusions of grandeur. Sweet.

[Show Me the Wire]

No we moved on to an additional topic. You want to hang your hat on Asmussen's opinions as being infallable.

His earlier opinion was that Rachel couldn't lose. He has been quoted saying he would never have put Rachel on the track if he thought she would lose. Well she lost. His opinion about her winning is wrong.

Now Asmussen is of the opinion Rachel can't be ready in time for the AB. Why should anyone give more credence to this new opinion? If Asmussen was wrong regarding the prep, he certainly has a good chance about being wrong about the AB.

Anybody else think there is a good chance Asmussen could have erred in his opinion that Rachel couldn't be fit enough for the AB, in light of how hastily the opinion was?

See I broke new ground on a topic.

[46zilzal]

I wondered why anyone would ask a presser to run at one of the longest stretches of any mile course in North America........that track did not help her at all.

[PaceAdvantage]

Fillies who win the 9.5 furlong Preakness do not tend to have severe distance limitations, as folks on here continue to try and imply about Rachel.

[Tom]

That ... is ... the ... slowest ... raw ... time ... she ... has ... ever ... run ... 8.5f.

That... mean...absolutely ... nothing.
You...should...check...out...your...local community...college.

And, while you're at it, maybe you should lean how to discuss thing like an adult. Your childish rants and calling people names is growing old fast. This is NOT the board you came from - we... have... a... little... class... around... here.

[FenceBored]

That... mean...absolutely ... nothing.
You...should...check...out...your...local community...college.

And, while you're at it, maybe you should lean how to discuss thing like an adult. Your childish rants and calling people names is growing old fast. This is NOT the board you came from - we... have... a... little... class... around... here.

Tom,

If you took the " word ... word" as an insult I apologize. It was meant as emphasis to highlight the point (pausing between words), not as a denegration of you (speaking slow).

As to the times, we disagree. I don't see how running slower on a fast track at 4 than she did on a sloppy track as a young 3yo (or any other track condition at any age) is a highly positive place in her form cycle. She'll clearly move forward from this, but this said to me she probably needs another race to really round into form.

[FenceBored]

No we moved on to an additional topic. You want to hang your hat on Asmussen's opinions as being infallable.

His earlier opinion was that Rachel couldn't lose. He has been quoted saying he would never have put Rachel on the track if he thought she would lose. Well she lost. His opinion about her winning is wrong.

Now Asmussen is of the opinion Rachel can't be ready in time for the AB. Why should anyone give more credence to this new opinion? If Asmussen was wrong regarding the prep, he certainly has a good chance about being wrong about the AB.

Anybody else think there is a good chance Asmussen could have erred in his opinion that Rachel couldn't be fit enough for the AB, in light of how hastily the opinion was?

See I broke new ground on a topic.

Well now, that's very interesting, but John Pricci doesn't agree with you:
Her [Rachel's] connections don’t know where they’re at because off that race they cannot know where she is with herself.

...

So the only choice the camp had is to do what they did; not point for a specific race, allowing the filly to come to top form on her timetable, not their’s. It truly would be folly to do it any other way. Even Zenyatta’s camp acknowledged that.
-- http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/03182010-cant-zenyatta-and-rachel-fans-just-get-along/

[Show Me the Wire]

Well now, that's very interesting, but John Pricci doesn't agree with you:
Her [Rachel's] connections don’t know where they’re at because off that race they cannot know where she is with herself.

...

So the only choice the camp had is to do what they did; not point for a specific race, allowing the filly to come to top form on her timetable, not their’s. It truly would be folly to do it any other way. Even Zenyatta’s camp acknowledged that.
-- http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/03182010-cant-zenyatta-and-rachel-fans-just-get-along/


Great (sarcasm), is he the final authority? So he may agree with you., so what. There are others that disagree.

I have a suggestion, if Asmussen doesn't understand how to gauge his charge, maybe Jackson should hire Wiggins. He was the one that actually put the foundation into Rachel, before Asmussen improved on it

It is completely understandable that a trainer doesn’t have the answer for every individual horse. Asmussen took charge of Rachel, while she was in tip top shape. Acquiring Rachel in her fit condition and being able to gauge her at that time is vastly different than the understanding needed to return her to her previous form.

This lack of understanding could be a possible explanation for the contoroversial use of figure 8 and the desire to change her running style.

[Tom]

How many horses has Pricci trained:confused:

[FenceBored]

Great (sarcasm), is he the final authority? So he may agree with you., so what. There are others that disagree.

I have a suggestion, if Asmussen doesn't understand how to gauge his charge, maybe Jackson should hire Wiggins. He was the one that actually put the foundation into Rachel, before Asmussen improved on it

It is completely understandable that a trainer doesn’t have the answer for every individual horse. Asmussen took charge of Rachel, while she was in tip top shape. Acquiring Rachel in her fit condition and being able to gauge her at that time is vastly different than the understanding needed to return her to her previous form.

This lack of understanding could be a possible explanation for the contoroversial use of figure 8 and the desire to change her running style.

Did anyone insinuate that Pricci is the final authority? No.

Did anyone say that Asmussen is infallible? No.

It may please you to construct strawmen, but it doesn't actually prove your arguments.

[Show Me the Wire]

Did anyone insinuate that Pricci is the final authority? No.

Did anyone say that Asmussen is infallible? No.

It may please you to construct strawmen, but it doesn't actually prove your arguments.

I see you failed to address the issue about Asmussen and his ability gauging Rachel, in favor of a post about straw arguments ( oh, the irony). So let's put that issue aside for now.

Based on your answer regarding Pricci and Asmussen, I want to focus on the following question.

You agree there are other reasonable possibilities, which could include physical issues, reputation issues, etc., motivating the connections withdrawal from the AB?

No spin or straw here, just a straight forward question about the existence of other possible motives. The question is solely about the possible existence of other motives and not their probability.

In other words, the question requires only a simple yea or nay. Anything else a non-answer answer.

[FenceBored]

I see you failed to address the issue about Asmussen and his ability gauging Rachel, in favor of a post about straw arguments ( oh, the irony). So let's put that issue aside for now.

Based on your answer regarding Pricci and Asmussen, I want to focus on the following question.

You agree there are other reasonable possibilities, which could include physical issues, reputation issues, etc., motivating the connections withdrawal from the AB?

No spin or straw here, just a straight forward question about the existence of other possible motives. The question is solely about the possible existence of other motives and not their probability.

In other words, the question requires only a simple yea or nay. Anything else a non-answer answer.

Are you "holding court" now?

[Show Me the Wire]

Are you "holding court" now?

No, showing how difficult it is to get a simple answer out of someone that desires control over other peoples' thoughts and the resulting disruptive behavior.

[FenceBored]

No, showing how difficult it is to get a simple answer out of someone that desires control over other peoples' thoughts and the resulting disruptive behavior.

Funny, it looks like "holding court" to me.

[Show Me the Wire]

FenceBored:

Are you ready to move on? I am. Let's explore the idea that Asmussen is having difficulty gauging Rachel's progress, because Asmussen did not put the original foundation into Rachel.

What do you think?

[FenceBored]

FenceBored:

Are you ready to move on? I am. Let's explore the idea that Asmussen is having difficulty gauging Rachel's progress, because Asmussen did not put the original foundation into Rachel.

What do you think?

I see, and when did this first occur to you?

[Show Me the Wire]

Fencebored:

Your condescending remarks fit your elitist thought patterns to a tee. How wonderful for you that you are so much better than everyone else. When did it occur to you that you are obsessed with control?

Keep on demonstrating, to the world, your need to control through deflection and refusal to address topics of discussion.

You can continue with your personal issues without my involvement. Carry on.