Does Jess Jackson owe us an explanation re Rachel?

[Stillriledup]

Jess Jackson is liked by some, disliked by some but talked about by all. Does he owe us an explanation on Rachel's mysterious and sudden retirement?

Part of me feels like he does and the other part of me says he's within his rights to not give the paying public any info whatsoever.

[Cardus]

Jessie Jackson has a problem with Rachel Alexandra?

[DeanT]

Jess Jackson is liked by some, disliked by some but talked about by all. Does he owe us an explanation on Rachel's mysterious and sudden retirement?

Part of me feels like he does and the other part of me says he's within his rights to not give the paying public any info whatsoever.

A good topic. If an NFL QB called it quits after flashing a 22 for 28 and 304 yards like her work was and retired the press would go nuts. I know our sport is not watched and JJ or whomever owes us nothing...... but I am amazed at the whole silence thing.

Word is (on the net of course) she was lame. So the Freak what - it does not tarnish her career one bit if she is lame. In fact, it says more positive about JJ and SA if she was lame and they did not inject it and pop her in the Beldame.

Like Haskin and a bunch of people smarter than I have said - it would be great to hear an explanation. So many of us followed the horse and we would like to know wassup.

[Stillriledup]

Good Stuff Dean.

I guess if they announce she's lame, it might tarnish her or something. Do we really think she just retired 'sound'? Not too many people think that's the case.

[DeanT]

Good Stuff Dean.

I guess if they announce she's lame, it might tarnish her or something. Do we really think she just retired 'sound'? Not too many people think that's the case.
I dunno; it is "internet stuff"

But in the last article, I think by Angst, it said SA is sworn to secrecy and unable to comment. WTF? It's like he is not a horse trainer but some sort of CIA operative. It's weird.

[chickenhead]

I'm still waiting for him to admit that he did in fact order the code red.

[Stillriledup]

I guess Jess thinks we can't handle the truth about Rachel, so he's keeping quiet! :faint:

[Bruddah]

I guess Jess thinks we can't handle the truth about Rachel, so he's keeping quiet! :faint:

I understand the want to know and the curiousity about her condition, but I don't understand the attitude that Mr Jackson owes us or the Sport an explanation. With all he has given us and the Sport, with Curlin and Rachel, he's paid in full. (JMHO)

It's human nature to want more information. It's unreal expectations to think more information is owed.

[Grits]

I understand the want to know and the curiousity about her condition, but I don't understand the attitude that Mr Jackson owes us or the Sport an explanation. With all he has given us and the Sport, with Curlin and Rachel, he's paid in full. (JMHO)

It's human nature to want more information. It's unreal expectations to think more information is owed.

Couldn't agree more, Bruddah. It is human nature to want an explanation, curiosity resides in all of us at some level. Some of us, though, much less than others. Still, today the established "need to know" by the public combined with the mindset of the media, "the public is owed, therefore, we must deliver" has reached a pinnacle like never before questioned or answered--stated or written.

The blog entry below at the Times Union by Tim Wilkins, to me, was particularly unfortunate.

http://blog.timesunion.com/horseracing/asmussen-wont-comment-on-rachel-alexandras-retirement/6145/

Barbara's photos yesterday morning at the DRF of Rachel's leaving Saratoga, for me, had far more appeal. Pictures worth a thousand words.

http://www.drf.com/news/photos-rachel-alexandra-leaves-saratoga-headed-her-new-career

She will be SO missed. I doubt seriously I'll ever see another like her in my lifetime. Her exquisite beauty combined with that full tilt, high cruising speed; she was truly something to behold.

[Pick6]

JJ is obviously not obligated to explain the true reason(s). I can't recall a sudden retirement of any racehorse with no substantive explanation given.

My guess is that revealing it would reflect on himself, and this would explan why he is mum.

[FenceBored]

JJ is obviously not obligated to explain the true reason(s). I can't recall a sudden retirement of any racehorse with no substantive explanation given.

My guess is that revealing it would reflect on himself, and this would explan why he is mum.

Then perhaps you could assist me by pointing out the "substantive explanation given" for this retirement:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/59090/dont-forget-gil-retired-in-ft-mixed-sale

[Pick6]

Then perhaps you could assist me by pointing out the "substantive explanation given" for this retirement:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/59090/dont-forget-gil-retired-in-ft-mixed-sale
Do I need to? I guess you emphasized my point "I can't recall...".

And I am talking HOY-caliber horses and their ilk. I'm sure there are hundreds of also-rans that practically nobody cares about.

[FenceBored]

Do I need to? I guess you emphasized my point "I can't recall...".

And I am talking HOY-caliber horses and their ilk. I'm sure there are hundreds of also-rans that practically nobody cares about.

"Hundreds of" graded stakes winning "also-rans that practically nobody cares about." :rolleyes:

A peach, I tell ya, a veritable peach.

[DeanT]

I'm sure there are hundreds of also-rans that practically nobody cares about.

For the record, I did not play 1st year U football because I had a sore foot. It had nothing to do with a lack of talent. Figured you might want to know.

[BluegrassProf]

Word is (on the net of course) she was lame. So the Freak what - it does not tarnish her career one bit if she is lame. In fact, it says more positive about JJ and SA if she was lame and they did not inject it and pop her in the Beldame.That's precisely what it is: an internet rumor.

Plenty of people around backsides here. We might not ever know the reason Jackson made the decision he did, but it doesn't take a whole heck of a lot of work to know what the reason isn't - even with redundant hacks like Haskin trying his/her best to drum up the drama...he knows just as well as anyone. Best to leave it at that.

[DeanT]

That's precisely what it is: an internet rumor.

Plenty of people around backsides here. We might not ever know the reason Jackson made the decision he did, but it doesn't take a whole heck of a lot of work to know what the reason isn't - even with redundant hacks like Haskin trying his/her best to drum up the drama...he knows just as well as anyone. Best to leave it at that.

Let us in on the secret will ya? I have asked four "in the know" people and got three different answers. What's the story? Why the espoinage?

[BluegrassProf]

There's no secret. She just arrived at Churchill. Perfect working order. Greener pastures ahead.

[Hanover1]

Even if she was lame, so what? Perhaps the prevalent use of drugs, both for theraputic reasons, and the ever present list of "positives" we see, could shed some light on the realities of exactly how many horses, at EVERY level, race 100% sound for entire careers. See the photo of Nickelson........

[PaceAdvantage]

My guess is that revealing it would reflect on himself, and this would explan why he is mum.You would guess that. Good thing JJ isn't from NY, or we'd have a real doozy of a thread on our hands... :lol:

[mountainman]

That's precisely what it is: an internet rumor.



Sure. They stopped on the second best cash machine in american racing simply because they felt like it. Or decided she had done enough. With all respect, sir, what planet do you live on?

[the little guy]

Sure. They stopped on the second best cash machine in american racing simply because they felt like it. Or decided she had done enough. With all respect, sir, what planet do you live on?


Yeah, Jess really needs the cash.

[BluegrassProf]

With all respect, sir, what planet do you live on?Apparently not the one where Rachel Alexandras are shipped off to the glue shop...not bred.

Badoom-crash! Good call. :ThmbUp:

Seriously. Move on. If you're looking for a nice little piece on how it actually feels to be a fly on the wall, take a quick read:

http://www.drf.com/blogs/goodbye-girl-rachel-alexandra-heads-toward-new-life-0

If anyone owes anything, it's all of us who owe her - Jess Jackson is background noise, a small line in the credits who helped put something extraordinary on stage. We're not owed a damned thing. Let it go.

Greener pastures.

[Shelby]

I understand the want to know and the curiousity about her condition, but I don't understand the attitude that Mr Jackson owes us or the Sport an explanation. With all he has given us and the Sport, with Curlin and Rachel, he's paid in full. (JMHO)

It's human nature to want more information. It's unreal expectations to think more information is owed.

I agree. I'd like to know more, but I'm not entitled to any explanation at all.

I honestly don't think that she's hurt, though.

[Grits]

Yeah, Jess really needs the cash.

Yes, another poster that doesn't realize the vast difference between money and wealth.

[Grits]

Apparently not the one where Rachel Alexandras are shipped off to the glue shop...not bred.

Badoom-crash! Good call. :ThmbUp:

Seriously. Move on. If you're looking for a nice little piece on how it actually feels to be a fly on the wall, take a quick read:

http://www.drf.com/blogs/goodbye-girl-rachel-alexandra-heads-toward-new-life-0

If anyone owes anything, it's all of us who owe her - Jess Jackson is background noise, a small line in the credits who helped put something extraordinary on stage. We're not owed a damned thing. Let it go.

Greener pastures.

BG, this one deserves its own thread. Barbara's photos are the finest, her writing skill equally so, as her books have revealed.

[riskman]

Yes, another poster that doesn't realize the vast difference between money and wealth.

I believe you took the TLG post the wrong way but he can speak for himself.

[Grits]

I believe you took the TLG post the wrong way but he can speak for himself.

No, I'm sorry I didn't. TLG, one can be sure, recognizes the difference between money and wealth--real wealth. My post was simply agreeing with his observation of "yeah, Jackson really needs the cash" upon Mountainman's noting of Rachel as a "cash machine".

Agreeing with a poster is far removed from speaking for them.

TLG doesn't need my aid on this or any other matter pertaining to horseracing.

[riskman]

No, I'm sorry I didn't. TLG, one can be sure, recognizes the difference between money and wealth--real wealth. My post was simply agreeing with his observation of "yeah, Jackson really needs the cash" upon Mountainman's noting of Rachel as a "cash machine".

Agreeing with a poster is far removed from speaking for them

TLG doesn't need my aid on this or any other matter pertaining to horseracing.

I am the one who got it wrong. I just realized that
"another poster" was not TLG but someone else. I made the mistake of not reading the whole thread.
Looks like I need some shut eye.

[Grits]

;) Rest well.

[Pick6]

"Hundreds of" graded stakes winning "also-rans that practically nobody cares about." :rolleyes:

A peach, I tell ya, a veritable peach.
Nice.

I guess you can name several HOY caliber horses who retired suddenly for no reason, other than "she doesn't owe anybody anything?"

[Pick6]

You would guess that. Good thing JJ isn't from NY, or we'd have a real doozy of a thread on our hands... :lol:
Whether you like it or not, his basic silence on this matter indeed reflects on him.

[mountainman]

Yeah, Jess really needs the cash.

When you meet somebody who doesn't want more money. Let me know.

[mountainman]

Apparently not the one where Rachel Alexandras are shipped off to the glue shop...not bred.

Badoom-crash! Good call. :ThmbUp:

Seriously. Move on. If you're looking for a nice little piece on how it actually feels to be a fly on the wall, take a quick read:

http://www.drf.com/blogs/goodbye-girl-rachel-alexandra-heads-toward-new-life-0

If anyone owes anything, it's all of us who owe her - Jess Jackson is background noise, a small line in the credits who helped put something extraordinary on stage. We're not owed a damned thing. Let it go.

Greener pastures.

What in the WORLD does ANY of this have to do with my inference that Rachel was retired due to infirmity???

[the little guy]

When you meet somebody who doesn't want more money. Let me know.


There are plenty.

[FenceBored]

Nice.

I guess you can name several HOY caliber horses who retired suddenly for no reason, other than "she doesn't owe anybody anything?"

:sleeping:

You said "any racehorse," not "HOY caliber horses." If the Bloodhorse thinks a horse is prominent enough to warrant a separate article to announce its retirement, I'd say that's a little better than "any racehorse." As to who may have retired without giving a reason, I don't begrudge an owner for doing it, so I've got no reason to remember who may or may not have done it. The only reason I remember the Don't Forget Gil story is that it broke the same time the Rachel retirement brouhaha started and my irony meter broke.

'How can you give Brushwood a pass when you're so critical of Stonestreet for doing the same thing,' he asked in his whiny imitation of a unzen Zen fan.

:lol:

[Pick6]

:sleeping:

You said "any racehorse," not "HOY caliber horses." If the Bloodhorse thinks a horse is prominent enough to warrant a separate article to announce its retirement, I'd say that's a little better than "any racehorse." As to who may have retired without giving a reason, I don't begrudge an owner for doing it, so I've got no reason to remember who may or may not have done it. The only reason I remember the Don't Forget Gil story is that it broke the same time the Rachel retirement brouhaha started and my irony meter broke.

'How can you give Brushwood a pass when you're so critical of Stonestreet for doing the same thing,' he asked in his whiny imitation of a unzen Zen fan.

:lol:
So you missed my post then?


And I am talking HOY-caliber horses and their ilk. I'm sure there are hundreds of also-rans that practically nobody cares about.
So when you can cite me some examples that somehow change the uncommon nature of a HOY retiring for no reason other than "she doesn't owe anybody anything", I'm all ears.

[mountainman]

Yes, another poster that doesn't realize the vast difference between money and wealth.

Implying that money isn't a primary concern of any racing enterprise is pure silliness. And lecturing someone on the difference between "money" and "wealth" is irrelevant psychobabble. Besides, if I imply that jj retired Rachel rather than risk worsening some physical problem, then haven't I credited him with motives that transcend mere dollars and cents?

[mountainman]

There are plenty.

And Sasquatch is out there too.

[FenceBored]

So you missed my post then?


No, Sparky, I replied to your post.

So when you can cite me some examples that somehow change the uncommon nature of a HOY retiring for no reason other than "she doesn't owe anybody anything", I'm all ears.

Irrational faux righteous indignation. My favorite kind. :rolleyes:

[Pick6]

No, Sparky, I replied to your post.
So if you read my post that clearly stated this:

And I am talking HOY-caliber horses and their ilk. I'm sure there are hundreds of also-rans that practically nobody cares about.
Why would you respond with this?

You said "any racehorse," not "HOY caliber horses."
And who exactly is "talking" about the example you brought up that bolsters my position, i.e. nobody cares?


Irrational faux righteous indignation. My favorite kind. :rolleyes:
Fine. You have a really solid argument against my claim. Can you be my lawyer?

And who is "Sparky"?

[Grits]

Implying that money isn't a primary concern of any racing enterprise is pure silliness. And lecturing someone on the difference between "money" and "wealth" is irrelevant psycho-babble. Besides, if I imply that jj retired Rachel rather than risk worsening some physical problem, then haven't I credited him with thinking beyond mere dollars and cents?

Yep, you're dead on--got me down to a tee--all silliness, lecturing, and irrelevant. Uttering continuous psycho-babble. Unfortunately.

Please go back and try and understand the wording of my post, that is if you're speaking of the one you indicate I lectured in. I try to be distinctly careful in this regard. And I was. I didn't imply money wasn't a primary concern of any racing enterprise. The major point of my post was only one racing enterprise. I stated I didn't think money was a concern for Jerry and Ann Moss. There again, having money and having wealth, and you, I'm sorry, still don't get the difference between the two. And Jackson falls pretty closely along the same line as Jerry and Ann Moss.

Odd when someone else writes, its their opinion; I write my own, after you guys throw it back and forth for 40 some pages and its lecturing.

Well, screw that one. EOC.

[Linny]

Maybe I am an oddity in this information age but I don't think owners of horses "owe" the fans or bettors anything when a horse retires. Yes, we have poured passion and interest and time into the horse but when it's said and done, the horse is the property of the man (or woman) who bought it, fed it, housed it and cared for it at his expense. If JJ or Jerry Moss had taken us in as partners and we had sent monthly checks for the care of RA or Z for the last 3+ years then maybe we are "owed" and explanation of their decisions.

The owner of a horse can do what he wants as long as it's legal. They could send RA to Barnum and Bailey to learn to do tricks or send Z to learn to be a show jumper.

[Stillriledup]

When you meet somebody who doesn't want more money. Let me know.

Everyone 'wants' more money, but there are a lot of people who don't NEED more money.

When you don't need more money, i would imagine you're less aggressive in trying to pad the bankroll before death.

[mountainman]

.

I stated I didn't think money was a concern for Jerry and Ann Moss. There again, having money and having wealth, and you, I'm sorry, still don't get the difference between the two.

EOC.

So there is some special insight concerning wealth and the people who possess it that I don't have, but you do? Were you born with this ability to read the minds of rich people, or is it an aquired knack?

[Stillriledup]

So there is some special insight concerning wealth and the people who possess it that I don't have, but you do? Were you born with this ability to read the minds of rich people, or is it an aquired knack?

I think he's going on common sense. Not all people do everything in their power in every situation to squeeze every last dollar out of every situation. Moss has plenty of money, he needs Z to be undefeated more than he needs another million. If he needed/wanted money, he would have run Z in the Pacific Classic at least once.

[mountainman]

When you don't need more money, i would imagine you're less aggressive in trying to pad the bankroll before death.

You have to be joking.

[mountainman]

I think he's going on common sense. Not all people do everything in their power in every situation to squeeze every last dollar out of every situation. Moss has plenty of money, he needs Z to be undefeated more than he needs another million. If he needed/wanted money, he would have run Z in the Pacific Classic at least once.

Wrong horse. We were discussing Rachel. At least get on the right page before taking issue.

[mountainman]

So there is some special insight concerning wealth and the people who possess it that I don't have, but you do? Were you born with this ability to read the minds of rich people, or is it an *aquired knack?

*acquired

[Grits]

The only issue being taken here is your insults and your problem with the truth.

Acquire this--

Mountainman wrote: Sure. They stopped on the second best cash machine in american racing simply because they felt like it. Or decided she had done enough. With all respect, sir, what planet do you live on?
Excuse me?

The above was your first post to this thread. Rachel was being discussed until you got your butt on your shoulders and started hurling insults at others, and pulled a post that I wrote from another thread, clearly, into your comments here. Myself being a particular focus of your verbage.

Mountainman wrote: Wrong horse. We were discussing Rachel. At least get on the right page before taking issue.
Your smart mouth hasn't stopped hitting "submit reply" yet. You're simply bent on insulting others, someone to be ignored. Something one shouldn't hesitate to do--not for a New York minute. There is nothing pleasant in having an exchange with you, I'm sorry to have made the mistake.

[FenceBored]

So if you read my post that clearly stated this: [QUOTE by Pick6]And I am talking HOY-caliber horses and their ilk. I'm sure there are hundreds of also-rans that practically nobody cares about.[/QUOTE by Pick6]
Why would you respond with this?[Quote by FenceBored]You said "any racehorse," not "HOY caliber horses."[/Quote by FenceBored]


Because the post on that I first responded to said this: [QUOTE by Pick6]JJ is obviously not obligated to explain the true reason(s). I can't recall a sudden retirement of any racehorse with no substantive explanation given.
My guess is that revealing it would reflect on himself, and this would explan why he is mum.[/QUOTE by Pick6]
Clear enough for you?


And who exactly is "talking" about the example you brought up that bolsters my position, i.e. nobody cares?


Exactly. Nobody's talking about Don't Forget Gil, because a horse retiring without the connections sharing all the details is not a big deal. The Bloodhorse saw fit to publish an article on her retirement, and didn't bat an eye at the lack of disclosure.

That doesn't bolster your position, it shows that you're not serious about anything but jumping up on your soapbox. I hear that Jess Jackson has a special toliet paper holder that dispenses it on alternating diagonals. Want to start a thread blasting him for that?


Fine. You have a really solid argument against my claim. Can you be my lawyer?


What are you planning to do, sue Jess Jackson? :lol:

[Bruddah]

The only issue being taken here is your insults and your problem with the truth.
Acquire this--


Excuse me?

The above was your first post to this thread. Rachel was being discussed until you got your butt on your shoulders and started hurling insults at others, and pulled a post that I wrote from another thread, clearly, into your comments here. Myself being a particular focus of your verbage.


Your smart mouth hasn't stopped hitting "submit reply" yet. You're simply bent on insulting others, someone to be ignored. Something one shouldn't hesitate to do--not for a New York minute. There is nothing pleasant in having an exchange with you, I'm sorry to have made the mistake.

Dang, I just love Southern women who are the strong vociferous type. You go girl. :ThmbUp:

[Pick6]

...

So you agree then that it is unusual for HOY caliber horses to suddenly retire with no reason, other than the dumb "she doesn't owe anybody anything" statement? because:
(A) You can't offer any evidence to the contrary, and
(B) I posted exactly that and you are not disputing it.

And I am talking HOY-caliber horses and their ilk. I'm sure there are hundreds of also-rans that practically nobody cares about.

And if you consider commenting on a legitimate story of which several articles progressed as "slamming", then I guess our discussion has reached a point of absurdity.

It is a legitimate story; I'm sorry if you can't deal with that.

And your post markup is messed up, if you care to know.

[FenceBored]

So you agree then that it is unusual for HOY caliber horses to suddenly retire with no reason, other than the dumb "she doesn't owe anybody anything" statement? because:
(A) You can't offer any evidence to the contrary, and
(B) I posted exactly that and you are not disputing it.


No, I don't agree. And you don't have a real argument, becuase:

(A) You can't offer any evidence that this is a 'rule' that every other "HOY caliber horse" (whatever that means) has followed.

(B) You posted one thing, and when you were shown to be wrong, changed your tune and acted like you never said the other.


And if you consider commenting on a legitimate story of which several articles progressed as "slamming", then I guess our discussion has reached a point of absurdity.

It is a legitimate story; I'm sorry if you can't deal with that.


It's a legitimate story for a day maybe two. After that it's just the axe-grinders. These are identifiable by the presence of phrases like Jackson isn't saying why he retired her because "it would reflect on himself"


And your post markup is messed up, if you care to know.

The post markup was fine, it was the way it was to make sure you could 'quote' it without having to go through the pain in the ... hoops I did in creating the post.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nice.

I guess you can name several HOY caliber horses who retired suddenly for no reason, other than "she doesn't owe anybody anything?"When was RA ever HOY caliber in 2010? Of course, the same could be said for another well regarded female running this year.

[Pick6]

When was RA ever HOY caliber in 2010? Of course, the same could be said for another well regarded female running this year.
Last I checked she was reigning HOY. Also last time I checked they hand out the award the following year. Difficult (impossible?) to retire the same year you win the award.

[Pick6]

No, I don't agree. And you don't have a real argument, becuase:

(A) You can't offer any evidence that this is a 'rule' that every other "HOY caliber horse" (whatever that means) has followed.

(B) You posted one thing, and when you were shown to be wrong, changed your tune and acted like you never said the other.

You can try to refute my claim anytime you want. Until then, I'll stick with my correct claim.

Again, I don't care about the 100s of also-rans. We are discussing HOY-caliber horses like RA. It is big news and Jackson failed. Sorry.

It's a legitimate story for a day maybe two. After that it's just the axe-grinders. These are identifiable by the presence of phrases like Jackson isn't saying why he retired her because "it would reflect on himself"
Ok, well just your opinion. At least you concede it is a "story". And indeed it does reflect on him. Choice words describe the situation as "bizarre", and "unbelievable". And I am not even describing the goofy campaign that led to it. Sorry if you don't like that.


The post markup was fine, it was the way it was to make sure you could 'quote' it without having to go through the pain in the ... hoops I did in creating the post.
If it were "fine" it would appear "fine". It did not. Poor excuse, I'm sure you would not be doing me any favors. It looked bad as well. But who cares, there was not much to read there anyways.

[WinterTriangle]

Not being into the "owe me" concept, I'm sure people like to speculate, and actually have fun doing so.

For myself, I rely on my own eyes, and then, observations from those I respect.

Seeing the way Rachel ran in 2010.... then hearing Hal Wiggins, who knows this horse as well as anyone, say they gutted her, is really all I need.

I mean how many spins does one need to put on it?

[Pick6]

Not being into the "owe me" concept, I'm sure people like to speculate, and actually have fun doing so.

For myself, I rely on my own eyes, and then, observations from those I respect.

Seeing the way Rachel ran in 2010.... then hearing Hal Wiggins, who knows this horse as well as anyone, say they gutted her, is really all I need.

I mean how many spins does one need to put on it?
If Jackson were honest, he would come out and say something in close alignment with that. But...

[Bruddah]

Not being into the "owe me" concept, I'm sure people like to speculate, and actually have fun doing so.

For myself, I rely on my own eyes, and then, observations from those I respect.

Seeing the way Rachel ran in 2010.... then hearing Hal Wiggins, who knows this horse as well as anyone, say they gutted her, is really all I need.

I mean how many spins does one need to put on it?

BINGO! and AMEN BRUDDAH, er uh, SISTAH!

[WinterTriangle]

I will say something complimentary about Moss and JJ. I think Grits was alluding to this earlier in another post.

These guys don't need money. Both of them are the succeed types, they were very successful in their endeavors before they got into horse racing. Moss started out in Herb Alpert's garage.

I know men who have made their first few millions......then lost it all. But a few years later, they do something else, and make it all over again. You can't keep them down.

After I read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, how to think without thinking, I read Outliers, The Story of Success. There is a recipe to why some succeed and others don't.

It takes a lot of *DRIVE*. Not everyone has that. You can be smart and business savvy but if you don't also have that drive you don't get to where they are. My best friend's mom has it. She imported french country antiques 45 years ago before it became fashionable.....that was in her late 30s and even into her laste 70s she is still going to europe, sending home shipping containers, and getting down on her hands and knees to look at the undersides of a chair :D She has tremendous drive, drive, drive, and she would have been successful in ANYTHING she chose to do.

Ditto, Shirreffs and Asmussen. It's not like I don't think they don't both work their butts off, their cell phones must be ringing 1,000 times a day.

anway, all these people will be successful because they are driven to be, and in that, I can admire them.

[fast4522]

Come on folks, Mr Jackson does not need to say squat because it is right there in the good old racing form. Nice three year old that never matured into anything good like the crop of other three year olds did.

[BluegrassProf]

I will say something complimentary about Moss and JJ. I think Grits was alluding to this earlier in another post.

These guys don't need money. Both of them are the succeed types, they were very successful in their endeavors before they got into horse racing. Moss started out in Herb Alpert's garage.

I know men who have made their first few millions......then lost it all. But a few years later, they do something else, and make it all over again. You can't keep them down.

After I read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, how to think without thinking, I read Outliers, The Story of Success. There is a recipe to why some succeed and others don't.

It takes a lot of *DRIVE*. Not everyone has that. You can be smart and business savvy but if you don't also have that drive you don't get to where they are. My best friend's mom has it. She imported french country antiques 45 years ago before it became fashionable.....that was in her late 30s and even into her laste 70s she is still going to europe, sending home shipping containers, and getting down on her hands and knees to look at the undersides of a chair :D She has tremendous drive, drive, drive, and she would have been successful in ANYTHING she chose to do.

Ditto, Shirreffs and Asmussen. It's not like I don't think they don't both work their butts off, their cell phones must be ringing 1,000 times a day.

anway, all these people will be successful because they are driven to be, and in that, I can admire them.While we're on the topic, I'd recommend checking up on Jess Jackson's background sometime if you'd like to hear a wildly impressive story of self-determination and work ethic. People often assume he fell into wealth (particularly since they apparently goddamn need someone to villify, and ol' JJ's an easy target) - and they're dead wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

Not being into the "owe me" concept, I'm sure people like to speculate, and actually have fun doing so.

For myself, I rely on my own eyes, and then, observations from those I respect.

Seeing the way Rachel ran in 2010.... then hearing Hal Wiggins, who knows this horse as well as anyone, say they gutted her, is really all I need.

I mean how many spins does one need to put on it?She didn't look gutted in any of her 2010 races. A gutted horse runs up the track like Mine That Bird.

By the way, can you or Mr. Wiggins give us the answer as to who or what what gutted MTB?

[OntheRail]

Come on folks, Mr Jackson does not need to say squat because it is right there in the good old racing form. Nice three year old that never matured into anything good like the crop of other three year olds did.
I'm sure a lot would love a barn full just like her from 2010... :faint:.

And only NICE as a three year old... :rolleyes:.

She was exceptional at 3.. and that leads to the jaded view at 4.

[WinterTriangle]

While we're on the topic, I'd recommend checking up on Jess Jackson's background sometime if you'd like to hear a wildly impressive story of self-determination and work ethic. People often assume he fell into wealth (particularly since they apparently goddamn need someone to villify, and ol' JJ's an easy target) - and they're dead wrong.

Yes, it's why I wrote the post. People who "succeed" in one area are often able to succeed in many others as well. There's a whole psychology, work ethic, drive ability, attitude, and other innate characteristics in people who have the "gene to succeed."

Interesting documentary on earlier this week, called Lemonade. (based on when life gives you lemons you make lemonade.) It chronicles a group of people who were laid off in their industries, and the wild success they found by using the same talents they used in their previous jobs, to succeed as entrepreneurs.

It's about their flexibility, of course, too.
Change is not merely necessary to life - it is life." Alvin Toffler

[WinterTriangle]

By the way, can you or Mr. Wiggins give us the answer as to who or what what gutted MTB?

It was a combination of things, don't you think?

Over shipping was one.

But there were so many bad decisions made by MTB's owners, where would one even start? :D And probably many more to come.

Dublin is another one that comes to mind........

Trainers and owners of course, can, and often do, ruin perfectly good horses.

[PaceAdvantage]

It was a combination of things, don't you think?

Over shipping was one.

But there were so many bad decisions made by MTB's owners, where would one even start? :D And probably many more to come.

Dublin is another one that comes to mind........

Trainers and owners of course, can, and often do, ruin perfectly good horses.So where do we draw the line on the use of the term "gutted?"

I do not believe that term applies to Rachel Alexandra. You do?

[fast4522]

I'm sure a lot would love a barn full just like her from 2010... :faint:.

And only NICE as a three year old... :rolleyes:.

She was exceptional at 3.. and that leads to the jaded view at 4.

Look I am guilty of falling in love with horses like Zenyatta, Lava Man and even RA. I remember talking to a friend across the country prior to the races about Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra who he though would beat them that day, I said I want to see them both win and I was not betting those races. They both won that day and I made quit a bit that day and skipped the correct races. Falling in love with horses I am guilty of but I am also guilty of dropping them like a dead raccoon when they are done, get the fork out.

[FenceBored]

You can try to refute my claim anytime you want. Until then, I'll stick with my correct claim.


You made a positive assertion (every HOY caliber horse that retires when Pick6 isn't ready for them to retire personally calls Pick6 and through their interpreter {i.e. the connections} gives a full and complete explanation of all the facts leading to the decision), either back it up, or back off. Oh wait, your initial post said "I can't recall," so you've already got your secondary weasel position staked out.


Again, I don't care about the 100s of also-rans. We are discussing HOY-caliber horses like RA. It is big news and Jackson failed. Sorry.


Exactly, you don't really care. This is just your bitter clinging to the last stick with which to beat Rachel's connections for being Rachel's connections.


Ok, well just your opinion. At least you concede it is a "story". And indeed it does reflect on him. Choice words describe the situation as "bizarre", and "unbelievable". And I am not even describing the goofy campaign that led to it. Sorry if you don't like that.


The retirement is a story. The ginned up "controversy" over the reasons is not. To those who didn't get all the answers they wanted, it's time to just buck up.


If it were "fine" it would appear "fine". It did not. Poor excuse, I'm sure you would not be doing me any favors. It looked bad as well. But who cares, there was not much to read there anyways.

See, that's one of your problems. You think that because someone doesn't agree with you on an issue that they're always going to go out of their way to make things more difficult for you. That's a sad commentary on your life, and perhaps on how you treat others. Between this and your uncaring attitude toward the majority of the horse population we're getting quite a portrait of you.

[Nikki1997]

She didn't look gutted in any of her 2010 races. A gutted horse runs up the track like Mine That Bird.

By the way, can you or Mr. Wiggins give us the answer as to who or what what gutted MTB?

A gutted horse does not necessarily always "run up the track". They show being drained out in other ways. The term "gutted" may not mean a horse is not in racing condition. It is used to mean the attitude, desire and want to has been removed from a horse. It may not mean exhaustion, unthrifty fitness, etc. It is a term to describe an animal that has been overfaced to the point they don't want to exert themselves in whatever discipline they are being used for. Smarty Jones' performance in the Belmont is an example of a horse being physically "gutted" after a very draining performance. Many times when a horse has been pushed to and past their limits, they just don't want to give the same level of effort they have shown to be capable of. They basically go through the motions of doing what is asked. No equipment, rider changes, etc. will make a difference in a case like that because the major problem lies between their ears. The filly worked well, like she always did, but her races in 2010 were a distinct departure from 2009. Not getting into the numbers thing because those don't matter to me. If the filly had shown some of the same desire as she did last year, her record might read differently. She didn't because she didn't want to.

Questioning Hal Wiggins' assessment of her in 2010 is right there in the same neighborhood of what you accuse the fans of the Big Mare of doing. Hal Wiggins actually trained racehorses for 30 years. He didn't sit behind a keyboard and vicariously offer opinions and suggestions to other trainers as to what to do with their horses. The man knows there is actually more to a horse than cleaning it's feet out.

Do you know more about the filly, her quirks, her personality, her likes and dislikes than Hal Wiggins? I seriously doubt you do. I think it's because you simply don't want to read what her first trainer, the man who put the foundation on the filly that launched her into the races after she was sold, had to say about her efforts this year.

I have no idea why you brought MTB into this, other than for some reason, mentioning him seems to give you a point of distraction away from the filly and also gives you some sort of strange example of what you say is "gutted". Both horses have been mishandled.

Bitch and gripe at Z's connections about mishandling all you want, but who is retired and who isn't? The filly's connections ran her into the ground last year. There, I said it. Because I saw it. She gave everything to you and her other fans and she paid the price for it this year. Sorry if you don't see that but that's how I see it.

One other thing, if Z had been retired as abruptly as the filly, the attacks on her connections would have escalated into the stratosphere. Don't bother saying they wouldn't. I don't bet, but I'd bet on that.

[DeanT]

It is a term to describe an animal that has been overfaced to the point they don't want to exert themselves in whatever discipline they are being used for.

I agree with this definition. It is the difference between a great horse and a super horse, or a good horse and a great horse - fighting and having the desire to run through pain or encumbrances.

I had someone tell me once about one of his charges who was not fighting like he used to - 'he got smart. he knows he will get a tub full of feed, a bath and be treated well whether he fights or does not'

I think it is like that in most sports. The guy (or gal) who can fight through adversity and pain, say like in the tour de France or a marathon, will have an edge on their competition.

I guess I am guilty as most in humanizing horses but I have a huge amount of respect for any horse, whether it be a cheap claimer or stakes horse who can brush off adversity and run another horse until they say no mas. Quality Road in the Met Mile was one of, if not my fave race of the year. He had every excuse to give up, but he has way too much will. I love that in a racehorse. Rachel, of course had that as well. The Woodward is a prime example.

[Grits]

I'm amazed, I swear to God, I AM totally amazed that on a messageboard, one that includes a majority that have been following the sport of thoroughbred racing for DECADES, not just 3 to 5 years but decades. All are treated to an explanation of what a gutted horse is, and does.

Again, amazed. Its coming from one who doesn't even support thoroughbred racing by betting.

Its time to take a break from all of this. These discussions have reached their pinnacle--having passed any benefit to readers quite sometime ago.

Nikki, not to cast any unkindness, that's not my intent. I am just simply flabbergasted with this messageboard at this point.

[DeanT]

I'm amazed, I swear to God, I AM totally amazed that on a messageboard, one that includes a majority that have been following the sport of thoroughbred racing for DECADES, not just 3 to 5 years but decades. All are treated to an explanation of what a gutted horse is, and does.

Again, amazed. Its coming from one who doesn't even support thoroughbred racing by betting.

Its time to take a break from all of this. These discussions have reached their pinnacle--having passed any benefit to readers quite sometime ago.

Nikki, not to cast any unkindness, that's not my intent. I am just simply flabbergasted with this messageboard at this point.

You had two people with a differing view on what a gutted horse is and does and they are speaking about it. Is that not what message boards are for? Pace does not have to groom one to have an opinion on that, and Nikki does not have to bet $500k a year to have one either, in my opinion.

[Linny]

She wasn't gutted but she certainly wasn't the filly we saw last year. I don't know or care why. My guess is a physical issue but I have no proof and don't require it.

As for JJ and "greed" well they left the purse of the Beldame and the BCD on the table. Has RA run second in both it would have been about 1/2 a million bucks for Mr. Greedy, but he chose to walk away from it and send the filly home. Either they knew the filly wasn't right and had little shot at that money and they wanted to preserve her reputation. If all they cared about was money they could have earned alot more from her this year by pressing a bit more. Once they saw that this was no longer the RA of 09, they eased up and stopped. When others do it they are heroes looking out for their stock. When JJ and As-man doing they are ...?

[the little guy]

I'm amazed, I swear to God, I AM totally amazed that on a messageboard, one that includes a majority that have been following the sport of thoroughbred racing for DECADES, not just 3 to 5 years but decades. All are treated to an explanation of what a gutted horse is, and does.

Again, amazed. Its coming from one who doesn't even support thoroughbred racing by betting.

Its time to take a break from all of this. These discussions have reached their pinnacle--having passed any benefit to readers quite sometime ago.

Nikki, not to cast any unkindness, that's not my intent. I am just simply flabbergasted with this messageboard at this point.

It's a good versus evil thing.

Pretty funny....and pretty sad.

[the little guy]

She wasn't gutted but she certainly wasn't the filly we saw last year. I don't know or care why. My guess is a physical issue but I have no proof and don't require it.

As for JJ and "greed" well they left the purse of the Beldame and the BCD on the table. Has RA run second in both it would have been about 1/2 a million bucks for Mr. Greedy, but he chose to walk away from it and send the filly home. Either they knew the filly wasn't right and had little shot at that money and they wanted to preserve her reputation. If all they cared about was money they could have earned alot more from her this year by pressing a bit more. Once they saw that this was no longer the RA of 09, they eased up and stopped. When others do it they are heroes looking out for their stock. When JJ and As-man doing they are ...?

But, don't you see, they are on the perceived evil side in this disgraceful argument.

[Bruddah]

This is just plain common sense. ALL ANIMALS, including man, reach physical peaks in their lives, at different points and ages. Some "athletes" have abilities to carry their competitive performances longer than others. (George Foreman comes to mind) However, even if they have long careers, there is a point one can say, they were at the apex of their abilities.

From all results, Rachel A., is still a very competitive horse. It's not like she refused to come out of the gate and not compete. It was not like she was "headed and looked in the eye" and lost her will to win. She is still able to be competitive at the top levels. She has gone from INVINCIBLE to vincible.

All this finger pointing and blame is ridiculous. It's just a natural cycle. She reached her peak at an early age. If she were a gelding, she would be raced until she refused to come out of the gate or broke down. Hopefully, at that point the animal would be pensioned.

[DeanT]

(George Foreman comes to mind)

I am convinced it was because of those hauntingly good burgers on his grill :)

I think it is like a running back - they lose that miniscule inch of quickness, or cutting ability, and they go from star to a 3.3 YPC guy. A little means a lot in sports (imo)

BTW, big George is a pretty big standardbred owner.

http://fanguide.ustrotting.com/famous_faces.cfm

[Dahoss9698]

I'm amazed, I swear to God, I AM totally amazed that on a messageboard, one that includes a majority that have been following the sport of thoroughbred racing for DECADES, not just 3 to 5 years but decades. All are treated to an explanation of what a gutted horse is, and does.

Again, amazed. Its coming from one who doesn't even support thoroughbred racing by betting.

Its time to take a break from all of this. These discussions have reached their pinnacle--having passed any benefit to readers quite sometime ago.

Nikki, not to cast any unkindness, that's not my intent. I am just simply flabbergasted with this messageboard at this point.

Another fantastic post. :ThmbUp:

[Fager Fan]

She didn't look gutted in any of her 2010 races. A gutted horse runs up the track like Mine That Bird.

By the way, can you or Mr. Wiggins give us the answer as to who or what what gutted MTB?

It's humorous that Hal Wiggins is constantly being trotted out as a halo-wearing hall of famer, when his sole claim to fame is that he was lucky enough to have Rachel Alexandra land in his barn for a few races.

Wiggins has no more insight into this than the thousands of others all looking on from afar.

[Dahoss9698]

For those that question Rachel's desire this year, I'd like to know in which race Rachel lost her desire.

I just watched her 3 losses, again. To me (and I've never mucked a stall, so maybe I'm not worthy) it sure does look like she wants to win. She fought tooth and nail down to the wire in New Orleans. IMO a horse that had lost her desire would not stopped fighting when she got collared. Digging in and fighting to the wire doesn't seem like a horse wthat doesn't want to "do it" anymore to me.

In the La Troienne, she was collared a bit before the 1/4 pole. She dug in, fought for the final 1/8 and lost by a long head. Again, sticking her head down and fighting through the lane doesn't seem like a horse to me that has lost her desire. She might have lost some of her talent, but her fight was there.

In the Personal Ensign she ran a filly that was undefeated that year into the ground. That filly returned to win the Beldame last weekend. The race was run as a pseudo match race and she won the match. However, she lost the war because they didn't take into account there were others in the field. You could say Life At Ten might have lost some desire after dueling with RA. She was up the track, while RA fought until the end.

[Fager Fan]

Anyone who is looking for further explanation regarding Rachel's retirement should be embarrassed. What you're doing is admitting that you have no clue. They retired her when all options were exhausted and she wasn't going to run to her 2009 level, and they cared enough to not send her out anymore where she'd run her heart out and still possibly lose. It couldn't be more obvious and the idea that people need this explained to them should be embarrassing for them to admit.

[Robert Fischer]

It's humorous that Hal Wiggins is constantly being trotted out as a halo-wearing hall of famer, when his sole claim to fame is that he was lucky enough to have Rachel Alexandra land in his barn for a few races.

Wiggins has no more insight into this than the thousands of others all looking on from afar.
I actually give Hal Wiggins a lot of credit for getting Rachel to reach her potential. However my perception of the whole story is somewhat unique.

[Stillriledup]

For those that question Rachel's desire this year, I'd like to know in which race Rachel lost her desire.

I just watched her 3 losses, again. To me (and I've never mucked a stall, so maybe I'm not worthy) it sure does look like she wants to win. She fought tooth and nail down to the wire in New Orleans. IMO a horse that had lost her desire would not stopped fighting when she got collared. Digging in and fighting to the wire doesn't seem like a horse wthat doesn't want to "do it" anymore to me.

In the La Troienne, she was collared a bit before the 1/4 pole. She dug in, fought for the final 1/8 and lost by a long head. Again, sticking her head down and fighting through the lane doesn't seem like a horse to me that has lost her desire. She might have lost some of her talent, but her fight was there.

In the Personal Ensign she ran a filly that was undefeated that year into the ground. That filly returned to win the Beldame last weekend. The race was run as a pseudo match race and she won the match. However, she lost the war because they didn't take into account there were others in the field. You could say Life At Ten might have lost some desire after dueling with RA. She was up the track, while RA fought until the end.

Didnt you realize that the 8 dollar an hour stall muckers who are out of bed at 5 am are more knowledgable than professional or serious horseplayers who bet thousands of dollars per race? Just muck a few stalls and you'll glean the key to riches at the betting windows. :rolleyes:

[Dahoss9698]

Didnt you realize that the 8 dollar an hour stall muckers who are out of bed at 5 am are more knowledgable than professional or serious horseplayers who bet thousands of dollars per race? Just muck a few stalls and you'll glean the key to riches at the betting windows. :rolleyes:

I wasn't trying to make that point, because there is a lot of knowledge that comes with working around a horse. But there are other ways of gaining knowledge. Spending 40,50,60 and more hours a week studying tape, handicapping, etc helps.

[Linny]

I would dare say that the grooms who are assigned to tend the most valuable stock in the country probably DO know more about their charges than those of us who bet on them. (First off because of years of observing horses as individuals and secondly because most grooms also bet.) Certainly is RA had any physical issues the groom would surely know about it as he would be treating it!

I have no idea why she wasn't as sharp as last year but most horses don't maintain that kind of form. RA's 09 campaign was far tougher than Z's and maybe it took it's toll. Her owners could have kept going but chose not to. It's not like she's a colt and they need to preserve stud value. They did what they think is best.

[Pick6]

Anyone who is looking for further explanation regarding Rachel's retirement should be embarrassed. What you're doing is admitting that you have no clue. They retired her when all options were exhausted and she wasn't going to run to her 2009 level, and they cared enough to not send her out anymore where she'd run her heart out and still possibly lose. It couldn't be more obvious and the idea that people need this explained to them should be embarrassing for them to admit.
So you are concluding she would not be competitive in the Beldame and BC Ladies? Several posters here thought her effort in the PE was impressive and left a positive impact on her chances in these races. In fact, she may have indeed been favored in one or both of these races.

[Dahoss9698]

So you are concluding she would not be competitive in the Beldame and BC Ladies? Several posters here thought her effort in the PE was impressive and left a positive impact on her chances in these races. In fact, she may have indeed been favored in one or both of these races.

You really have serious reading comprehension issues, or you're a troll. Here is what was said

They retired her when all options were exhausted and she wasn't going to run to her 2009 level, and they cared enough to not send her out anymore where she'd run her heart out and still possibly lose.

You took "still possibly lose" and turned that into she wouldn't be competitive in the Beldame and Distaff. Nice trick.

You can count me as one who thought her effort in the PE was fine and she would have definitely been favored in the Beldame. That's a no brainer.

[Pick6]

You made a positive assertion (every HOY caliber horse that retires when Pick6 isn't ready for them to retire personally calls Pick6 and through their interpreter {i.e. the connections} gives a full and complete explanation of all the facts leading to the decision), either back it up, or back off. Oh wait, your initial post said "I can't recall," so you've already got your secondary weasel position staked out.
Exactly. I make an assertion. It is up to you to refute it. I can recall no examples of any HOY caliber horse suddenly retired for any substantive reason. If it is easily refuted, I am waiting for your refutation.

Exactly, you don't really care. This is just your bitter clinging to the last stick with which to beat Rachel's connections for being Rachel's connections.
No, not too many HOY caliber horses around who suddenly retire for no substantive reason other than "she doesn't owe anybody anything."

The retirement is a story. The ginned up "controversy" over the reasons is not. To those who didn't get all the answers they wanted, it's time to just buck up.
Sorry, the REASONS for the retirement were also a story. Articles were written about it. It was major news. Sorry you missed it.

See, that's one of your problems. You think that because someone doesn't agree with you on an issue that they're always going to go out of their way to make things more difficult for you. That's a sad commentary on your life, and perhaps on how you treat others. Between this and your uncaring attitude toward the majority of the horse population we're getting quite a portrait of you.
This post is directed toward you and nobody else. You read into it whatever you want. When you fail at refuting a point, yet still claim the point is false, then you have a failed position.

And who was "sparky" again?

[Pick6]

You really have serious reading comprehension issues, or you're a troll. Here is what was said

They retired her when all options were exhausted and she wasn't going to run to her 2009 level, and they cared enough to not send her out anymore where she'd run her heart out and still possibly lose.

You took "still possibly lose" and turned that into she wouldn't be competitive in the Beldame and Distaff. Nice trick.

You can count me as one who thought her effort in the PE was fine and she would have definitely been favored in the Beldame. That's a no brainer.
Thanks for agreeing with me.

Her options were obviously not "exhausted". How that translates to "reading comprehension issues" or a "troll" is beyond me.

[Dahoss9698]

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Her options were obviously not "exhausted". How that translates to "reading comprehension issues" or a "troll" is beyond me.

Why even respond if you are going to continue to ignore the point being made? You totally twisted his post and continue to do so.

Par for the course.

[Pick6]

Why even respond if you are going to continue to ignore the point being made? You totally twisted his post and continue to do so.

Par for the course.
Again, the point is her options are not exhausted. This was posted, and is what I am responding to. You even agreed that she would be favored in the Beldame. How can that be an "exhausted" option when you have the best horse in the race?

Why are you being so obtuse on this?

[Dahoss9698]

Again, the point is her options are not exhausted. This was posted, and is what I am responding to. You even agreed that she would be favored in the Beldame. How can that be an "exhausted" option when you have the best horse in the race?

Why are you being so obtuse on this?

Nope, you took possible lose and twisted it around. That is what I am talking about. You know this.

I agree her options weren't exhausted. We've moved on from there. Let's discuss how you twisted his words. What was the reason for it?

Why do you always insist on playing dumb? Nevermind, I know the answer.

[Pick6]

Nope, you took possible lose and twisted it around. That is what I am talking about. You know this.

I agree her options weren't exhausted. We've moved on from there. Let's discuss how you twisted his words. What was the reason for it?

Why do you always insist on playing dumb? Nevermind, I know the answer.
No, you got it wrong. When one states "all options are exhausted", and it is not true, I am going to cite it. How anybody can claim this when she wil be favored in two of the most important F/M races of the year is missing it completely. RA still would have a big chance at winning these races and earning older F/M of the year. How that can be "all options exhausted?"

How does "possibly lose" even weigh on what I've said? You need to get that bitterness out of your system.

Oh, thanks for agreeing with me again.

[Dahoss9698]

No, you got it wrong.

This must be what one does when they don't have the balls to bet. Get on message boards, play dumb, then twist words around in order to compensate for the lack of sack. Here are YOUR words.

So you are concluding she would not be competitive in the Beldame and BC Ladies?

At no point did he say she would not be competitive. That is the discussion now. You are taking a small part of the sentence while ignoring the other part of it.

But you know that. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm actually betting today, I don't have the time to play with you today. You should try it sometime.

[Pick6]

This must be what one does when they don't have the balls to bet. Get on message boards, play dumb, then twist words around in order to compensate for the lack of sack. Here are YOUR words.
I told you multiple times what I was responding to. It was obvious. If you think you can read minds, then there is no hope, I guess.

At no point did he say she would not be competitive. That is the discussion now. You are taking a small part of the sentence while ignoring the other part of it.
Ok. Let's start again. If a horse's options are "exhausted", but that same horse will be competiive, most likely favored, in two of the most important races in her division, then I can safely conclude her options are not "exhausted." You even agreed to this. Why are you talking about something that does not even weigh in my original point?

But you know that. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm actually betting today, I don't have the time to play with you today. You should try it sometime.
Again. Her options were not exhausted. Simple. You even agreed with this. In fact RA had a path to older F/M honors for 2010.

Quit being so bitter trying to strawman my statement into something it was not.

[Dahoss9698]

Last word

[Pick6]

...and the bitterness oozes out of its confines again...

[Dahoss9698]

How's your handicapping contest going?

[Pick6]

How's your handicapping contest going?
Why the bitterness?

If you want an honest answer it looks like there is some interest. How that relates to this thread is beyond me.

[Dahoss9698]

Why the bitterness?

If you want an honest answer it looks like there is some interest. How that relates to this thread is beyond me.

Last word

[Pick6]

Last word
Brilliant. Post something like this again so you can earn such prestigious recognition.

[Dahoss9698]

Brilliant. Post something like this again so you can earn such prestigious recognition.

Last word

[FenceBored]

Exactly. I make an assertion. It is up to you to refute it. I can recall no examples of any HOY caliber horse suddenly retired for any substantive reason. If it is easily refuted, I am waiting for your refutation.


No, not too many HOY caliber horses around who suddenly retire for no substantive reason other than "she doesn't owe anybody anything."


Sorry, the REASONS for the retirement were also a story. Articles were written about it. It was major news. Sorry you missed it.


This post is directed toward you and nobody else. You read into it whatever you want. When you fail at refuting a point, yet still claim the point is false, then you have a failed position.

And who was "sparky" again?

If you were honest you'd admit your reasons, but that would reflect poorly on you and this would explain why you don't.

[Pick6]

If you were honest you'd admit your reasons, but that would reflect poorly on you and this would explain why you don't.
Makes perfect sense to me.

Jackson had no interest in winning BC Ladies, for various reasons. So they entered RA in the 10f PE to see if she could get the distance. The deal being that if she wins, Asmussen gets to point her to the BCC. If she loses, then that's it.

Asmussen probably kept her in training specifically for the Beldame, with Jackson having last word if she goes in the race.

I don't believe there was anything wrong with the horse, otherwise this would have been a clear explanation for retirement.

So I guess that reflects poorly on me.

[FenceBored]

Makes perfect sense to me.

Jackson had no interest in winning BC Ladies, for various reasons. So they entered RA in the 10f PE to see if she could get the distance. The deal being that if she wins, Asmussen gets to point her to the BCC. If she loses, then that's it.

Asmussen probably kept her in training specifically for the Beldame, with Jackson having last word if she goes in the race.

I don't believe there was anything wrong with the horse, otherwise this would have been a clear explanation for retirement.

So I guess that reflects poorly on me.

Yes, actually it does, because the question was "why are you so obsessed with the topic," not "what is your fantasy explanation for the final weeks of Rachel's race career."

[Pick6]

Yes, actually it does, because the question was "why are you so obsessed with the topic," not "what is your fantasy explanation for the final weeks of Rachel's race career."
Of course, you made it abundantly clear from that last post.

How you get from an innocent thread on a HR forum to "obsessed" doesn't ring with the smartest of conclusions.

I get it now that you are sensitive to this topic. But it is fair game whether you like it or not.

[FenceBored]

Of course, you made it abundantly clear from that last post.

How you get from an innocent thread on a HR forum to "obsessed" doesn't ring with the smartest of conclusions.

I get it now that you are sensitive to this topic. But it is fair game whether you like it or not.

I'm not sensitive about this topic at all. In fact it's my non-sensitivity to it that enables me to be amused by your obsession. Tell me, when was the last time you saw Jess Jackson's face on any toasted bread products (i.e. grilled cheese sandwiches, tortilla, or french toast)? Was he smiling or grimacing?

[Pick6]

I'm not sensitive about this topic at all. In fact it's my non-sensitivity to it that enables me to be amused by your obsession. Tell me, when was the last time you saw Jess Jackson's face on any toasted bread products (i.e. grilled cheese sandwiches, tortilla, or french toast)? Was he smiling or grimacing?
You got me cold on that one.

If you are so "non-sensitive", why the name calling?

Another poster here who claims they can read people's minds.

Would you also like the honor of "last word"? Your post above has about as much relevance.

I know you can't refute my claim, so I guess you resort to just posting nonsense. A reflection on yourself, I guess.

[fast4522]

I do not feel the horse was gutted just just not stakes quality F & M 3 and up. It happens to more nice 3 year old fillies than you guys are willing to admit. Andrew Beyer is like a weatherman you see on the tv, sometimes gets to be wrong and still gets a better raise in pay than you will ever get. Hey Grits don't go anywhere the topic will change soon enough.

[Dahoss9698]

You got me cold on that one.

If you are so "non-sensitive", why the name calling?

Another poster here who claims they can read people's minds.

Would you also like the honor of "last word"? Your post above has about as much relevance.

I know you can't refute my claim, so I guess you resort to just posting nonsense. A reflection on yourself, I guess.

Another stellar contribution.

[Fager Fan]

So you are concluding she would not be competitive in the Beldame and BC Ladies? Several posters here thought her effort in the PE was impressive and left a positive impact on her chances in these races. In fact, she may have indeed been favored in one or both of these races.

As if I'm influenced by what "several posters here" thought?

Who cares if she would've been "competitive"? Last year's Rachel wasn't "competitive" - she dominated. Who wants to see a Rachel who's at anything but her best? I don't. Her owner doesn't. She gave him and us all she had and he saw that and retired her to a life where every morning on the track isn't a risk to her life.

[Dahoss9698]

As if I'm influenced by what "several posters here" thought?

Who cares if she would've been "competitive"? Last year's Rachel wasn't "competitive" - she dominated. Who wants to see a Rachel who's at anything but her best? I don't. Her owner doesn't. She gave him and us all she had and he saw that and retired her to a life where every morning on the track isn't a risk to her life.

Oh stop with the risk to her life stuff.

If horses only ran when they were at their best there would be very few races. Cigar wasn't at his best at the end of 1996, but he still ran, and ran well. His legacy wasn't tarnished. That's one of hundreds of examples.

[Nikki1997]

I'm amazed, I swear to God, I AM totally amazed that on a messageboard, one that includes a majority that have been following the sport of thoroughbred racing for DECADES, not just 3 to 5 years but decades. All are treated to an explanation of what a gutted horse is, and does.

Again, amazed. Its coming from one who doesn't even support thoroughbred racing by betting.
Its time to take a break from all of this. These discussions have reached their pinnacle--having passed any benefit to readers quite sometime ago.

Nikki, not to cast any unkindness, that's not my intent. I am just simply flabbergasted with this messageboard at this point.

Not sure what constitutes the level of amazement you're expressing here, but as far as offering an opinion on a tb racing board and not being entitled to do so because I don't bet, well, that is equal to me telling you that you have no right to bet on the horses because you have little experience with them. There's a Handicapping Topic on this forum, right? I'm not there and I'm not posting there. Why? Because while I have knowledge about betting, I don't wade off into handicapping topics I know nothing about. Therefore, I don't post in that topic but I don't expect to be chastised for offering an opinon on a HORSE in the General Racing topic.

Sorry you're upset. Wait, no I'm not. I offered a very civil post on a thread and you have decided to offer up some crap that I'm not entitled to post because I don't bet. What a crock.

[Fager Fan]

Oh stop with the risk to her life stuff.

If horses only ran when they were at their best there would be very few races. Cigar wasn't at his best at the end of 1996, but he still ran, and ran well. His legacy wasn't tarnished. That's one of hundreds of examples.


Cigar didn't lose to nobodies. She has. Cigar had a good top half of the year. She didn't.

They brought her back for another year like last year. It didn't work out that way. They kept trying but the PE was the final card. When she didn't come out of that race showing she was back to her old self and showed that there would be no run in the classic and no matchup against Zenyatta, the options were exhausted. They couldn't know if she'd even win if she stayed with the fillies and run in the distaff, so why do it? It was an unselfish move to retire a champion who just didn't have it anymore. Hang up her tack and bring her home, she deserves it.

In addition, Jackson has cancer and didn't even attend her last race. That's not a good sign, and the only thing people care about is if they can get some unneeded explanation from him about a horse that tells you nothing you shouldn't already know?

[Dahoss9698]

Cigar didn't lose to nobodies. She has. Cigar had a good top half of the year. She didn't.

They brought her back for another year like last year. It didn't work out that way. They kept trying but the PE was the final card. When she didn't come out of that race showing she was back to her old self and showed that there would be no run in the classic and no matchup against Zenyatta, the options were exhausted. They couldn't know if she'd even win if she stayed with the fillies and run in the distaff, so why do it? It was an unselfish move to retire a champion who just didn't have it anymore. Hang up her tack and bring her home, she deserves it.

In addition, Jackson has cancer and didn't even attend her last race. That's not a good sign, and the only thing people care about is if they can get some unneeded explanation from him about a horse that tells you nothing you shouldn't already know?

What was so bad about her first half? She got beat a couple of heads.

I'm genuinely curious why the Distaff wasn't good enough to run in. I understand why it isn't for Jackson, with him it's ego. If we're at the point where our top horses are only running when they are 100% and if they know they are going to win, we're in a lot more trouble than I thought.

[Robert Fischer]

What was so bad about her first half? She got beat a couple of heads.

I'm genuinely curious why the Distaff wasn't good enough to run in. I understand why it isn't for Jackson, with him it's ego. If we're at the point where our top horses are only running when they are 100% and if they know they are going to win, we're in a lot more trouble than I thought.

she was good enough for the Distaff Dahoss,

but she wasn't "Rachel"

[Fager Fan]

What was so bad about her first half? She got beat a couple of heads.

I'm genuinely curious why the Distaff wasn't good enough to run in. I understand why it isn't for Jackson, with him it's ego. If we're at the point where our top horses are only running when they are 100% and if they know they are going to win, we're in a lot more trouble than I thought.

She got beat by nobodies by a couple heads. Last year, she beat those nobodies by 20 lengths. You can't see the difference?

Most don't set the bar as high as horses like Rachel and Zenyatta have set. When they can no longer run to the level they themselves set, it's not nearly so enjoyable, it can even be painful. I'm just a fan of the horse, have no connection to her at all, and those losses, particularly the last one, were like punches in the gut. It had to feel a lot worse to those connected to her.

[Dahoss9698]

She got beat by nobodies by a couple heads. Last year, she beat those nobodies by 20 lengths. You can't see the difference?

Most don't set the bar as high as horses like Rachel and Zenyatta have set. When they can no longer run to the level they themselves set, it's not nearly so enjoyable, it can even be painful. I'm just a fan of the horse, have no connection to her at all, and those losses, particularly the last one, were like punches in the gut. It had to feel a lot worse to those connected to her.

We're just not going to agree, but I am interested in why you feel the Distaff was beneath her. I enjoy the sport of horse RACING. Not horse retiring. To me, there was nothing painful about her effort in the PE. She ran well. She crushed the future winner of the Beldame.

If connections are that effected by losing they might be in the wrong sport. IMO there was nothing wrong with her year. it wasn't last year, but the chances of her replicating that were close to zero. Again, this kind of thinking that win or retire is why the game is where it is right now. Thank god connections didn't retire for this reason years ago. We would have missed out on a lot of great racing.

[Fager Fan]

We're just not going to agree. I enjoy the sport of horse RACING. Not horse retiring. To me, there was nothing painful about her effort in the PE. She ran well. She crushed the future winner of the Beldame.

If connections are that effected by losing they might be in the wrong sport. IMO there was nothing wrong with her year. it wasn't last year, but the chances of her replicating that were close to zero. Again, this kind of thinking that win or retire is why the game is where it is right now. Thank god connections didn't retire for this reason years ago. We would have missed out on a lot of great racing.

We'll agree to disagree. We're not talking of the average top horse here where I might agree with you, nor am I bothered by losses normally. I didn't care to see Michael Jordan play basketball when he was no longer the MJ that I marveled at, and I don't care to see Rachel not run like Rachel. One can feel this way about MJ and Rachel and not think that the same extends to every athlete.

[Dahoss9698]

We'll agree to disagree. We're not talking of the average top horse here where I might agree with you, nor am I bothered by losses normally. I didn't care to see Michael Jordan play basketball when he was no longer the MJ that I marveled at, and I don't care to see Rachel not run like Rachel. One can feel this way about MJ and Rachel and not think that the same extends to every athlete.

Could you just answer why the Distaff would have been beneath her?

[Fager Fan]

Could you just answer why the Distaff would have been beneath her?

It's not the classic, it's not a match-up against Zenyatta, and she might not have won the distaff. It's anti-climatic.

Would you be ok if JS announced that Zenyatta was going to run in the distaff instead of the classic?

[Dahoss9698]

It's not the classic, it's not a match-up against Zenyatta, and she might not have won the distaff. It's anti-climatic.

Would you be ok if JS announced that Zenyatta was going to run in the distaff instead of the classic?

Who cares if it isn't the Classic? Suddenly it's Classic or bust? When was she ever a legitimate Classic candidate this year anyway?

if they announced Zenyatta would be running in the Distaff, yes, it would be disappointing. That is because we have heard all year long that her lame schedule was because they were prepping for a repeat bid in the Classic. Apples and oranges isn't it?

Again, the might not have won stuff is very telling. If that becomes a popular idea, this sport is in a lot of trouble.

[Fager Fan]

Who cares if it isn't the Classic? Suddenly it's Classic or bust? When was she ever a legitimate Classic candidate this year anyway?

if they announced Zenyatta would be running in the Distaff, yes, it would be disappointing. That is because we have heard all year long that her lame schedule was because they were prepping for a repeat bid in the Classic. Apples and oranges isn't it?

Again, the might not have won stuff is very telling. If that becomes a popular idea, this sport is in a lot of trouble.

I don't know what to say that I haven't already said. I think it's apples and oranges to compare one of the best fillies in history to run-of-the-mill top horses. It's also different than if she had won huge a couple G1s, then lost to a top filly (or male), then won a big G1, and so forth. She didn't even run in a G1 and lost to fillies who are just nice, not top horses.

She wasn't Rachel and it wasn't fun to watch Rachel not run like Rachel.

For the sake of everyone, I'll make that my last attempt to explain since now I'm only repeating myself. We can cordially disagree.

[Dahoss9698]

I don't know what to say that I haven't already said. I think it's apples and oranges to compare one of the best fillies in history to run-of-the-mill top horses. It's also different than if she had won huge a couple G1s, then lost to a top filly (or male), then won a big G1, and so forth. She didn't even run in a G1 and lost to fillies who are just nice, not top horses.

She wasn't Rachel and it wasn't fun to watch Rachel not run like Rachel.

For the sake of everyone, I'll make that my last attempt to explain since now I'm only repeating myself. We can cordially disagree.

You need some perspective. Desperately.

[Fager Fan]

You need some perspective. Desperately.

I think you don't get it (and it's not that difficult to get), so I guess we're even.

[Dahoss9698]

I think you don't get it (and it's not that difficult to get), so I guess we're even.

Ahh, the "you don't get it" defense. Sure sign that your arguement is faulty.

[tbwinner]

Real reason why RA was retired...

...So both RA and Zenyatta foals can race each other in 2014...

[Stillriledup]

Real reason why RA was retired...

...So both RA and Zenyatta foals can race each other in 2014...
Even if Rachel raced the entire 2010, she would still get to breed in early 2011. She wasn't racing past this season anyway, even if she wasn't suddenly shelved.

[FenceBored]

I know you can't refute my claim, so I guess you resort to just posting nonsense. A reflection on yourself, I guess.

You don't have a legitimate 'claim' on the table.

You initial one
JJ is obviously not obligated to explain the true reason(s). I can't recall a sudden retirement of any racehorse with no substantive explanation given.

My guess is that revealing it would reflect on himself, and this would explan why he is mum.
was proven to be demonstratively false.

Trying to limit the "claim" to HOY caliber horses doesn't cut it cause Rachel isn't/wasn't a serious contender for any year end awards for this year, most especially not HOY. Besides, the only justifiable excuse for differentiating between "HOY caliber horses" and the "hundreds of also-rans that practically nobody cares about" would be that the connections of the former have a greater obligation to be forthcoming about their reasons. But, you said in your original offering in this thread "JJ is obviously not obligated to explain the true reason(s)." Therefore, any rational basis for making the distinction is nonexistent and you have no "claim."

[Grits]

Not sure what constitutes the level of amazement you're expressing here

Maybe it was the preaching to the choir thing. As I stated, these folks, many, many of them have been watching horseraces for decades. Pretty sure, they're familiar with gutted racehorses, those that have lacked the desire to win like Rachel Alexandra has in her races this year.

Not upset by your post. Amazed by it. There's a difference, of course, between the two. Sorry for the crap. Being able to state my opinion along with your own--this being the way messageboards go.

[PaceAdvantage]

She wasn't gutted but she certainly wasn't the filly we saw last year.Of course she wasn't gutted. Nikki just can't pass up any attempt at trying to tell me I don't know a horse's ass from a horse's mouth.

Hal Wiggins hasn't touched Rachel Alexandra since when? Spring 2009?

Yeah, I'm sure he can give a very accurate assessment from the comfort of his easy chair, simply because he once trained the horse.

From now on, every horse who doesn't progress from one year to the next is officially deemed GUTTED. So says Hal Wiggins, and so says Darling Nikki. There will be no other explanations or categorizations. This directive is all binding and officially originates from the hands-on dynamic duo (trio? quartet?) of Wiggins/Nikki-Mikki-Bobbi.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is just plain common sense. ALL ANIMALS, including man, reach physical peaks in their lives, at different points and ages. Some "athletes" have abilities to carry their competitive performances longer than others. (George Foreman comes to mind) However, even if they have long careers, there is a point one can say, they were at the apex of their abilities.

From all results, Rachel A., is still a very competitive horse. It's not like she refused to come out of the gate and not compete. It was not like she was "headed and looked in the eye" and lost her will to win. She is still able to be competitive at the top levels. She has gone from INVINCIBLE to vincible.

All this finger pointing and blame is ridiculous. It's just a natural cycle. She reached her peak at an early age. If she were a gelding, she would be raced until she refused to come out of the gate or broke down. Hopefully, at that point the animal would be pensioned.Now now now...you're making sense. You have to stop this. Didn't you get the memo? She was gutted... :lol:

In fact, I heard a rumor that RA whispered into JJ's ear that she was going to "pull a Lady's Secret, if you know what I mean" if they forced her out there one more time...that's the real reason why JJ retired her...

[trackrat59]

She wasn't Rachel and it wasn't fun to watch Rachel not run like Rachel.


This hits the nail on the head :ThmbUp: I agree 100%.

The one thing that eats at me is, I will always wonder how well Rachel would have run as a four year old if she was with Hal Wiggins. Taking nothing away from SA because he clearly had the JJ factor to deal with. In my heart of hearts I wonder, and I do believe we would have seen a different Rachel at four with HW. No excuses, just a gut feeling and belief on my part.

I love Rachel. She's been my favorite on the track for the past two years. I'll miss her very much :( and I wish her well. :)