The Internet has been abuzz with mostly negative comments about Jess Jackson's purchase of Rachel Alexandra and the announcement that she is under consideration for the Preakness Stakes (G1).
Admittedly, it did not take a lot of imagination to buy the 20-length winner of the Kentucky Oaks (G1), after the race. It took a lot of money.
And no one liked to see trainer like Hal Wiggins lose the star filly he trained for the first ten races of her career. So the backlash was predictable, perhaps warranted on some level.
But Rachel Alexandra's sale could be very good for a sport struggling to regain its place in the national conscience.
Clashes between great competitors are celebrated in all sports. In racing they are too few and far between.
With the exception of the Triple Crown, the Breeders' Cup, and a handful of other races, many of our best horses spend the year avoiding each other while preserving their value upon retirement, which comes too soon for too many.
Rachel Alexandra's breeder and previous owner Dolphus Morrison was going to point her to the Acorn Stakes (G1), a one-turn mile for three-year-old fillies on the Belmont Stakes (G1) undercard. The Acorn is a nice race and a conservative, logical spot, but it likely would have featured no more drama than the marvelous filly's morning workouts. Rachel Alexandra would have been 1-to-9 to crush the handful of rivals who showed up.
Not only was Morrison avoiding a matchup with colts under the admittedly less-than-ideal conditions the Triple Crown presents, he said he was looking out for the breeding value of those future stallions he did not want to chance trouncing!
"The Triple Crown races are for future stallions," said Morrison, definitely not quoting the condition book.
Jackson took the best dirt horse in the world -- two-time Horse of the Year Curlin -- and ran him on the grass because he wanted to find out if Curlin could make a historic run at the world's best grass race the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (Fr-G1). Jackson also ran Curlin on Santa Anita's experimental, synthetic Pro-Ride surface in the Breeders' Cup Classic (G1) instead of keeping him on the dirt tracks he excelled on.
Jackson will not limit Rachel Alexandra's campaign based on a regard for his competitors' breeding values. Nor will he keep her in races restricted to females because "fillies should run against fillies," as Morrison suggested.
It was the filly Rags to Riches who upset Curlin in the 2007 Belmont in what is likely to go down as one of the best races of the era, perhaps ever.
The Triple Crown is racing's greatest stage. If this year's Preakness features a matchup between one of the fastest fillies of modern times, an improbable 50-1 longshot who made the cover of Sports Illustrated, and the three colts who finished behind him in a blanket finish in the Derby slop, sports fans and racing will be the winners.
Succeed or fail, that kind of competitive spirit should be saluted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Whatever people might say about Jess Jackson, at least Rachel A is away from D Morrison. The whole "fillies should run with fillies" and the Derby is for "future stallions" was just bizarre. No rational explanation or historical precedent for the BS that guy spewed. If you own one of the best 3 year olds in the country you should be running in the Derby -- male or female. That egghead missed out -- lets hope Jackson does right by her.
They need to run the filly,
so the world can appreciate her.
The world only watched the Derby,
Not the OAKS,
Only horse players know about the OAKS,
Run Her, Whobet
I disagree with your opinion that running a filly in the Triple Crown series benefits the sport.
The ratings indicate that most people don't care about a filly racing the colts. They're much more interested in seeing a Triple Crown winner.
The estimated TV viewers for this year's Kentucky Derby race was 16.3 million. The Oaks doesn't even draw enough interest to get network coverage, so I doubt most people have even heard of Rachel Alexandra.
The Belmont viewership spikes when a Triple Crown is on the line, surpassing 13 million viewers every year a Triple was contested this decade. But the Rags To Riches Belmont drew less than 5 million viewers, its lowest ratings in years.
And running Rachel against the colts could do more harm than good. Think what will happen if she gets hurt. If she even has a minor injury it will give the animal rights people enough fuel to demand the government stick its nose in racing. And if she has a serious or fatal injury, this sport is finished.
Nobody can say whether or not she'll get hurt. So why take the risk of destroying the sport just to entertain the minority who care about a filly/colt match-up.
Jackson's purchase of Rachel Alexandra has taken every bit of excitement I had over the triple crown and racing in general and just deflated it. I cannot stand the pompous old wind bag that is Jackson. I was really hoping he would disappear after Curlin, but unfortunately he didn't.
I hate that he pretends to care about racing and seems passionate about making the sport better by stopping the medication use, etc. and then turns around and sends the horse to a trainer with a mile long list of suspensions.
Honestly, I can't even root for the filly anymore. In my opinion, it's no good for racing at all.
Curlin had no sizzle, no buzz and no drawing power whatsoever. Was it due to the fact that his trainer is a cheat, some of his owners are criminals, and his majority owner is a press-release generating billionaire windbag? I don't know, but RA will never approach the buzz that Zenyatta has at this time regardless of what she does at this time. What did Rags to Riches really gain by beating Curlin?
Rags to Riches gained a ticket to the Racing Hall of Fame by beating Curlin.
She also gave American racing a timely reminder that great fillies can beat great colts.
Plus a great memory for her fans.
I think the only negative buzz has been about the switch to Asmussen; the notion of her running against a field that might actually challenge her (e.g. in the Belmont, Travers and beyond) is a terribly exciting one.
I think a lot of people are turned off by the notion that horses can be bought for millions of dollars.
Horse sellers, of course, are ok with this.
I agree, people are offended by the idea of "greatness" being for sale.
It's silly and I cannot believe how determined many racing fans are to be bitter and let that interfere with their appreciation of this great filly.
Rags To Riches fractured her hind in the Belmont and was a few strides from disaster.
rr-
I believe Rags to Riches sustained a fracture in the Gazelle, not the Belmont.
The people that are turned off by horses being sold for millions of dollars are also the same people who are happy that America is on its way to becoming Sweden. They love the cradle to grave mentality. Athletes are bought for millions, businesses and Hollywood stars are too. What's the problem with selling horses for a fat price?
No one outside of racing knows Rachel Alexandra, so not sure why anyone not already following the sport would care if she was running in a TC race or not. Her connections never said they would not try her against males, just not at this time of the year. Sounds reasonable. Why stick your filly in a 20-horse demolition derby when there are perhaps better, fairer opportunities for her to prove herself with males down the road? And a horse being taken from a guy like Wiggins and given to a crook like Asmussen is nothing to celebrate. Not by a longshot. She's gone from a charming and compelling story to yet another in which a superb horse is surrounded by enough distasteful humans to make one gag a little. And that's a shame.
I think the argument is that a run in the Preakness will expose her to millions of fans (particularly young female fans, a demographic horse racing should be doing so much better with).
Whereas a run in the Acorn wouldn't even be a blip on the national sports radar.
Rags did suffer her injury in the Gazelle. Txs for clarifying that!
GREED AND STUPIDITY.
PERHAPS SOME OF YOU POSTERS HAVE NOT OWNED OR RACED HORSES.
REAL HORSEMEN RAISE AND MAKE A HORSE NOT BUY THEM.
EGOTISTIC MILLIONAIRES DO NOT IMPRESS ME.
FILLIES WITH FILLIES AND COLTS WITH COLTS
TWO DIFFERENT CLASSES AND IF RUN THE OUTCOME IS USUALLY NOT GOOD FOR A LOT OF REASONS
TOO BAD SOME POSTERS AND MILLIONAIRE EGOTISTS CANNOT ENJOY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEXES FOR THEIR NEED TO SATISFY SOME GAMBLING, EGOTISTICAL, COMPETITIVE DRIVE TO SEE ANIMALS RUN INTO THE GROUND
IF HE LOSES I HOPE HE DOESN'T SUE BOREL LIKE MOST PAST VENTURES OF HIS
STICK TO WINEMAKING AND GO AWAY
Pete Denk said...I think the argument is that a run in the Preakness will expose her to millions of fans (particularly young female fans, a demographic horse racing should be doing so much better with).
Whoever came up with that argument really needs to pull their head out. I'm sorry to break the news, but horse racing lost the young female demographic over the catastrophic filly breakdown in last year's Derby.
Pete - I agree with everything you wrote.
I was one of those people who hated seeing another horse pulled from a good, honest trainer like Wiggins to a supersized stable. I can't imagine what it was like for Wiggins to watch the filly he developed into a superstar be lead from his barn at Churchill to another.
However, it takes weathly people who are willing to spend money like Jackson, Sheikh Mohammed, Zayat, Iavarone, and the Coolmore affiliates to drive the industry.
I never liked the controversy surrounding the ownership of Curlin even before Jackson was involved, so I never cheered or wagered for Curlin to win. When Jackson purchased interest in Curlin, I thought it was just another attempt for him to throw his money at the sport in attempt to reap dividends in the breeding sector and then file lawsuits if he got burned. However, my opinion of Jackson changed during the campaign of Curlin. Jackson did the sporting thing when deciding where to run Curlin. Jackson knew that Curlin did not have the best of chances on the Pro-Ride in the Classic and could have put Curlin in the Clark Handicap on the dirt at CD, but Jackson ran him in the Classic so that America's best would be in the race that America's best should be in.
I think Jackson is doing the sporting thing again by running Rachel Alexzandra in the Preakness. This seems like an ideal spot for a filly to take on the colts. I don't think RA's romp in the Oaks took much out of her, so the 2 weeks between races is not much of a concern. Also, she is an imposing filly that is the type that can hold her own against the boys - she looks to be at least a full hand taller than Mine that Bird, so I would think that the filly would have the advantage if it came down to a bumping stretch duel.
If Rachael makes it to the gate, I think the only thing between her and a victory in the Preakness is Pioneerof the Nile. Although he had a taxing effort in the Derby to run second, I think Pioneer is a gritty horse that will always respond when challenged and can handle a two week layoff even after a taxing effort. I think Pioneer moves forward with a fast track in the Preakness and defeats both the Oaks and Derby winners.
To the ANONYMOUS poster-
Let's try to avoid the all-caps type posts. I don't have the ability to edit the comments. It's all-or-nothing, publish or reject. I don't want to have to censor the comments.
Ok...I don't think racing should give up on young fans, particulary females. For example, look at the groundswell of support for Nicanor that is still out there post-Eight Belles. Those people are very passionate fans! And many of them are not the stereotypical gambler/horse racing crowd.
I strongly disagree with your statement that REAL HORSEMEN RAISE AND MAKE A HORSE, NOT BUY THEM.
The off-the-racetrack market is an integral part of the Thoroughbred industry. As are all the other stops along the commercial market.
There are some very real and knowledgable horsemen who buy (and sell) weanlings, yearlings, two-year-olds, and yes horses off the track who have already run.
Pete Denk said...I don't think racing should give up on young fans, particulary females.
I'm not understanding how NOT running RA in the TC races equals giving up on young female fans?
I'm female and became a fan in 1973 at age 11. Secretariat's Triple Crown brought me into the game, then Slew and Affirmed cemented my love for the sport. There wasn't a filly in any of those TC races.
Thankfully, my mother wouldn't let me watch Ruffian's match race in 1975. She was concerned that Ruffian didn't have "enough bottom in her" to come out of that race well.
Ruffian probably had more bottom in her than RA does now. RA has only faced weak competition for one thing. So I really don't understand why they can't race her against tougher fillies first and then take on the boys later down the road.
As a female fan I can assure you that it does not take a filly in TC races to bring my gender into this sport. But if RA gets injured going against the colts, I can also assure you that racing will lose most of the young females that see it, along with plenty of older ones, too.
When I said racing should market to young female fans, I was specifically responding to the anonymous poster who said--> "I'm sorry to break the news, but horse racing lost the young female demographic over the catastrophic filly breakdown in last year's Derby."
Being a filly is just part of Rachel Alexandra's draw. #1 is that she's a great horse.
Great horses make for great races. The Triple Crown is the only time of the year that racing gets the big spotlight.
It's a compelling race with her in there.
Why does the argument come up over and over again that a filly will be sure to get hurt in a Triple Crown race? Why just a filly?
The thoroughbred has become so fragile that it's a huge risk that any of the horses could break down. Look at how the Derby field was decimated by injuries this year.
People should stop implying that it's a threat to RA's life to run her in a male race. All of those horses are threated... and people will be just as horrified if any one of them break down.
A Triple Crown winner would be a wonderful thing for the sport, but it's ridiculous to list that as a reason not to run her. If MTB is the best 3 yr old, it won't matter.
She's earned a spot in the top competition. Put her in.
And, a lot of women do like to see the fillies run in top competition. I think it adds an additional dimension to the race that can only help it.
I would consider myself a young female fan, and I am excited to see Rachel run. I am not excited they took her from Hal Wiggins, but what can you do? I won't deny myself the joy of watching her run because of something she can't help.
I have been in this sport long enough to see some bad things happen, but I always come back. I always just hope for the best. And Rachel lining up on Saturday makes the Preakness a far better race.
Her being a filly is almost forgetable in a way...kind of like everyone forgot Mine That Bird was a gelding because so much else was going on.
I know the boy vs. girl thing will be played up by the media; I am just trying to say that her being a filly is almost secondary. She deserves to be there on talent. Saying she shouldn't run because she is a girl seems a little bit backwards to me...
So, is Nicanor going to run ;)
Whatever happened to doing the right thing for the horse?
I don't care about what's best for the game, or for the Triple Crown, or for TV ratings. I care about what's best for Rachel Alexandra. A horse's well-being should *always* be a horseman's top priority, particularly when the horse in question is as spectacularly-gifted as Rachel Alexandra. And how is running in the Preakness good for Rachel Alexandra?
Running her in the Preakness to be sporting, or to increase interest in the Triple Crown series, is nothing short of irresponsible. Anybody who questioned her greatness was proven wrong on Oaks Day... she has nothing more to prove, nothing more to gain... but still has everything to lose.
Having said that, if Jackson and Asmussen want to try her against the boys, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But doing it in this way, running her back in two weeks off of a career-best effort, is *obviously* not the best thing for their horse.
They cannot possibly argue that they are doing the right thing for their horse by running her in the Preakness. She's run twice before on 15 days rest, and she lost both times. The bottom line is that they are doing this the wrong way. The right way to take on the boys would be to pick out a race, and prepare Rachel for it properly.
Mean Joe Freen -
In theory, I agree with you completely. If it isn't right for the horse, it doesn't matter if it would be right for the sport as a whole.
That said, how is Rachel any less prepared than Mine That Bird, Pioneerof the Nile, etc., etc.?
If anything she had a far easier race than any of the Derby contestants, save Mine That Bird, who also was never being pointed toward the Preakness until he won the Derby the way he did.
So should any horse who ran this month skip the race? Or is it just because she is a filly? (In which case that is a whole different argument...)
And if you are judging this solely by her 2-year-old form, than please tell me you bet Mine That Bird in the Derby off of his? ;)
I appreciate your response, Julie. Your point about Rachel being no less prepared than the Derby runners is a very good one. It could be that my great appreciation for her has caused me to be overly-protective of her. If I owned or trained her, I would definitely err on the side of caution, perhaps to a fault.
Maybe I should be more positive, and think of fillies like Genuine Risk, Winning Colors, or Rags to Riches, who excelled when run against the boys. Unfortuntely, I instead find myself thinking of champions like Soaring Softly and Azeri, who did everything they were asked to do against their own sex, only to have their human connections ask them for more and more... until they'd become a shadow of their former selves... I don't want to see that happen to Rachel Alexandra.
> If anything she had a far easier race than any of the Derby contestants, save Mine That Bird, who also was never being pointed toward the Preakness until he won the Derby the way he did.
MTB has plenty to gain by winning the Preakness. A win would get him the second jewel of the Crown, would disprove claims that his Derby win was a fluke, and could go a long way toward making him 3-year-old champion at the end of the year. His connections have ample justification for their change of plans.
It's too late for Rachel to win the Triple Crown, though, and she's clearly already the champion of her division. If she wins the Preakness, all she'll get credit for is a win over a dubious group of also-rans. That is insufficient reward for risking her health and safety.
> So should any horse who ran this month skip the race? Or is it just because she is a filly?
Any filly should, IMHO, especially a filly that's already proven herself to be the best of her generation. That would be enough for me.
Mean Joe Freen -
I get your point about Azeri and Soaring Softly, I do. However, I think Rachel is different. Mainly because she has already shown she is better than any other female in her class, whereas the other two got better when they were older.
In fact, I am pretty sure Azeri did not run at 2 and only ran twice at 3.
I agree Mine That Bird has plenty to gain from winning the Preakness, but realistically, so does Rachel. I guarantee you Jess Jackson would love to win Horse of the Year three years in a row.
The point of this sport is to put them where they belong. In this case she doesn't belong with the other 3-year-old fillies. Her races against them have become glorified workouts, so her options are older horses or colts.
Does that mean the Preakness is the ideal race to run her in? No. But it does mean she has a right to try.
Last year, the Horse of the Year in Europe wasn't Raven's Pass or Henrythenavigator, even though those 3-year-old colts loved the BC Classic (yes, yes, I know synthetic surfaces....). It was Zarkava. A 3-year-old filly. Given that she beat Goldikova for fun several times, I am sure she would have enjoyed running in the Breeders' Cup too. Or at least this year. But "she had nothing left to prove." Which kind of is sad to think about.
Zarkava relished running in the Arc. Maybe Rachel will relish the Preakness. If not, I hope that Jackson does back off her.
On that, at least, I hope we can agree! =)
To be honest, running back any of the Derby or Oaks horses in two weeks is less than ideal.
I'm trying to figure out why people are so up in arms about her running back in 2 weeks? It tells me they are neophytes and fairly clueless ones at that since it was barely 10 years ago that few gave second thought to running an Oaks winner back on 2 weeks in the Black Eyed Susan. In fact, I recall a time when the vaunted filly triple consisted of the Oaks, BES and (I believe) the Coaching Club Oaks and not the current Acorn/ACCO/Mother Goose format.
As for the notion that the thoroughbred of today is more unsound than it was 30 or even 10 years ago -- well, I don't think my opinion would clear the censor. "Big piles of manure" would be fairly close. This perceived notion of unsoundness (which NO ONE has ever been able to define beyond a vague generality) has more to do with current training practices and concrete surfaces than any nebulous breeding or genetic flaw. But god forbid we take responsibility for our own behaviour. Better to blame the (unproven and undefinable) fragility on some vague pseudo-genetic fault.
~~Sam
What a great perfomance by Rachel (and Mine That Bird). My first instinct was to post a picture of her on the gallop out, and Morrison's "Fillies should race againts fillies" quote. ;)
Gotta head out to the Timonium sale now though. Hopefully will find time for some blogging in the next couple days...
What a great race by both of them!
And, wow, you must be tired with such a crazy schedule.
When you get the chance, I would love to hear your thoughts on Mine That Bird's half-brother.
Post a Comment