It’s official. Owner Jess Jackson has announced that the talented and immensely popular filly Rachel Alexandra will not be running in the 2009 Belmont. This sets up perfectly for jockey Calvin Borel, who will now retake the mount of Kentucky Derby champion Mine That Bird in his quest for an all-Calvin Triple Crown. Sadly, for bloggers like me with a penchant for gratuitous military history references, this negates my ability to discuss the potential rematch between The Derby and Preakness winners as “June 6th, a date that will once again live in infamy” (which I’m fairly certain is an oxymoron considering that once something is truly “infamous”, it’s rather impossible to become infamous once again…you either are infamous, or your not, but I digress).
First, let me say that I tip my hat to Jess Jackson once again. You know that he wanted to showcase his filly in the Belmont, and it probably pains him to have to decide against running her. However, this move proves that he’s not just in this for fame and glory. Like I’ve said before, the man made all the right moves with Curlin, and once again he appears to be doing so with Rachel Alexandra. In fact, the only move he’s ever made that I’ve disagreed with is one in which he really had little choice anyhow; sending Curlin to Santa Anita to run in the ’08 Breeders’ Cup…and it’s important to note that he made the decision to send him for us, the fans, so that we would be able to see him on the sport’s biggest stage. In other words, while I had a hunch (and no doubt Jess did himself as well) that wouldn’t go well, one can certainly understand why the decision was made.
The decision to rest Rachel Alexandra has already sparked quite a bit of passionate discussion on the net. Whether it be Twitter, Facebook, or any other web application out there designed for such discussions, horse fans are talking. Of course, they’ve been talking longer than just today. The past few weeks being filled with opinions from one side of the spectrum to the other regarding Rachel, the Bird, and everything in between. What troubles me though is some of the recent discussion, and I’ll outline why.
The first genre of discussion that bothers me goes something like this:
- “I’m glad Rachel isn’t in the Belmont, she’s a filly and would’ve risked being hurt.”
Look, I totally sympathize with horse fans who don’t want to see anyone hurt. Nobody wants to see that. It’s not that concern that worries me so much as it is the hidden inference that somehow fillies are inferior to colts. Do we really need any further proof that this is simply not true (at least as a blanket statement)? They said the same thing about the Preakness, and then Rachel went out and dominated. I don’t recall hearing anyone in France being concerned that Zarkava was facing boys in the world’s richest turf race, the Arc de Triomphe. How’d that one turn out? How about Goldikova last year in the Breeders’ Cup Turf Mile? And is there anyone who really thinks after the Milady that Zenyatta wouldn’t thrash the California boys at Hollywood, Santa Anita, or Del Mar? I just don’t get it. Surely not all fillies are created equal, so when you’ve got one who is clearly heads and shoulders better than most runners on the planet why should she be held back? Because she’s a “she”? See, I worry sometimes that folks are masking latent sexism behind a thin veil of legitimate concern over injuries/well being. The truth of the matter is that anyone at anytime can get hurt. If we apply this logic across the board, then clearly following Barbaro’s injury we should have stopped all colts from running as well.
The next line of comments goes something like this:
- “I’m going to be soooo mad if Mine That Bird wins the Belmont, because that will mean Rachel robbed us of a Triple Crown!”
Huh??? I almost have to throw up in my mouth a bit when I hear this. Almost. Do people even think before they speak? She “robbed” you of a Triple Crown? For starters, let’s not forget that the Belmont hasn’t been run yet, so hold your horses (no pun intended) on anointing Mine That Bird even a theoretical Triple Crown winner. Da’ Tara, Birdstone, and Rags to Riches come to mind in recent memory as clear cut examples of why you never assume a Belmont’s outcome before it’s official. More importantly though, did Rachel Alexandra somehow cheat in the Preakness? Did I miss something? I’m just trying to understand how she “robbed” anyone of anything? If she “robbed” anyone, it was other network programs, as television ratings for the Preakness were through the freakin’ roof. You’d think people would be smart enough to see a star who is exactly what we need when they see one, but apparently not.
Didn’t Mine That Bird have a fair shot to beat her in the Preakness? Didn’t Rachel have to break from the extreme outside, set fairly fast splits being contested all the way, and then hang on in the stretch to win? That’s not robbing, that’s earning, and last time I checked, a horse needs to EARN a Triple Crown. That’s what makes it special. Otherwise we might as well just poll the public for who they’d like to see win and simply declare that horse the winner without ever racing. I can see Dennis Green now, banging on a table and telling reporters to “crown their asses, then!” when asked questions concerning the Chicago Bears. Same goes here. You want a Triple Crown so bad that you’re angry when a horse legitimately defeats a hopeful? Then crown their asses before the race and don’t even bother running.
Also, if I may sidestep for just a gosh darn moment…..where the hell were these people in ’07 when Rags to Riches came out of nowhere to “rob” Curlin??? That was MUCH closer to grand larceny than anything Rachel’s done.
When pressed, most of these people reference the fact that we “haven’t had a Triple Crown winner in 30 years” and that they’d “like to live to see one.” Oh really? Wow…didn’t realize they were so into history. Forgive me, then. It’s just that, well, you know…there are still plenty of folks alive who remember watching and wagering on the last Triple Crown winner. On the other hand, how many folks have you run into out there that remember Nellie Morse in the 1924 Preakness? Yeah…didn’t think so. If you’re going to reference history, then at least acknowledge that 85 years is a hell of a lot longer than 3 decades to wait to see something happen. Then again, we do live in the age of “instant gratification”, more’s the pity.
Look, I’ve got nothing but respect for Mine That Bird now either. He’s a magnificent colt that we ought to see for years to come, considering he’s a gelding. It’s just that I refuse to see him as some victim of a heinous crime. I remember the cat calls from all the Curlin haters back in ’07. “Curlin got beat by a girl!” Yeah, well, so did Mine That Bird, and the girl that beat him wasn’t as fresh as the girl that beat Curlin (nor was Mine That Bird as worn down as Curlin was). Personally I don’t consider the “beat by a girl” thing to be anything but the most childish of equine put-downs, as it never seems to apply to the horses that were truly beaten by open lengths (i.e., did you ever hear anyone say “Tiago got beat by a girl!” or “Hard Spun got beat by a girl!” ? Nope, it was always directed at Curlin…hell, at least he was competitive against a girl. How far back were Hard Spun and Tiago in the ’07 Belmont by comparison?).
The last line of thinking that really grinds my gears goes like this:
- “Rachel was exhausted in the Preakness, there’s no way she could get the mile and 1/2 of the Belmont.”
When I hear things like this, I wish I was instantly teleported to a face to face handicapping tournament, winner take all, as obviously these folks think that every race is totally equal and not unique at all.
Yes, Rachel was struggling a bit at the end of the Preakness. How that is supposed to directly translate into defeat or an inability to get the distance of the Belmont is beyond me. Are the two races supposed to be apples to apples? Have folks even considered that the entire pace setup could not only be completely different between the two races, but also explains rather clearly why Rachel was a bit tired at the end of the Preakness?
Consider the following stats. Here are the opening 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile splits between the ’08 Belmont and the “09 Preakness. Something should jump off the page at you regarding the half mile times in particular, even if you’ve never so much as thought about pace handicapping:
- opening 1/4 – :23.82
- opening 1/2 – :48.30
- opening 1/4 mile – :23.00
- opening 1/2 mile – :46.25
See that? Two full seconds faster in the opening half mile of the 2009 Preakness! And why was that exactly? Well, several reasons. In the 2008 Belmont, Da’ Tara got an easy lead. Even on the race replay you can hear the call that the opening half mile was set in a “sensible” time of :48.30. That’s what happens when you have a longer race, and a loose horse on the lead. The pace of longer races tends to be slower than that of shorter races, hence why horses who show speed routing can’t always be trusted to do the same when sprinting, whereas horses that show speed sprinting often will show similar (if not improved) speed routing.
In the ’09 Preakness, Rachel had to earn it every step of the way. She broke from the 13 hole, and had no choice but to gun for the lead or risk being hung wide on the turns. Anyone familiar with playing the Maryland tracks knows full well how vitally important positioning on the turns, and in particular the first turn, can be. Of course, Big Drama happened to be along the rail, and likewise was in a situation where he had to go for it right out of the gate. The result was a speed duel. Typically, if you see two horses eyeball to eyeball with each other through hotly contested opening fractions, you can expect them to start coming back to the rest of the field in the stretch, thus opening up for an off-the-pace runner. It’s a testament to Rachel Alexandra’s class that this did not happen, and that the only runners able to make any headway against her were Mine That Bird, and to a lesser extent Musket Man. That’s what made her win so impressive. It shouldn’t have happened. Most horses would not have pulled it off. In fact, her opening splits were closer to those set by Xchanger and Flying First Class in the ’07 Preakness (1/4 in :22.83, 1/2 in :45.75), and obviously neither of them wound up in the Superfecta.
So yes, she was struggling towards the end, but what exactly was she supposed to look like? Even Chip Woolley, trainer of Mine That Bird, admitted that his colt was fresher by virtue of only really having to run the last 3/8 of a mile of both the Derby and the Preakness. I’m sorry that she didn’t look as majestic as Big Brown in the ’08 Preakness, but she had a bit of a saltier field and a tougher trip to overcome. Eyes can be deceiving though. Again, apples to apples this most certainly is not.
Each race is unique, and one must resist the urge of looking at the ’09 Preakness replay and simpliifying by saying “yup, in another furlong Mine That Bird would’ve caught her.” Would he? Perhaps, but then again the entire race would’ve been different. The only thing you can be assured of is that if THAT EXACT running of the Preakness happened again, but went a furlong further, that perhaps Mine That Bird would have caught her. That’s it. That’s the only certain conclusion one can make. The rest is pure speculation or opinion….not that their’s anything wrong with either, necessarily, it’s just that when they are repeated as fact folks can get the wrong ideas. I’m just saying keep that in mind when you hear folks spouting off (and yes, that includes me and indeed this rant right here).
Similarly, we must resist the urge of DEMANDING a rematch between either Rachel and The Bird in the Belmont, or Rachel and Zenyatta at some later date. Would those races be exciting? Most definitely! But we can’t reduce ourselves to the plebians in the Colliseum, demanding that Caesar show us another round of gladitorial combat. Let the horsemen do what’s right for the horses, and let’s hope that we’re lucky enough to see them in their prime again before they are gone.
In conclusion, here’s hoping Rachel enjoys her much deserved time off. Rest up, baby girl. There are big plans for you both this summer and beyond. Personally, I’m hoping Jess sends her to Saratoga. I can think of no other track more befitting of an appearance by the queen herself. Now, if we could just get Zenyatta’s people to come face her…. 
With RACHEL ALEXANDRA ‘out’ of Belmont contention – is the 5lb. weight allowance given to fillies/mares and 3year-olds at certain times in the year against older horses – A KEY FACTOR IN THESE RACES??? Older trainers used to say that anything they could do including using ‘bug boys/girls’ to get the spot allowing their horse to carry less weight – WAS THE CRUCIAL FACTOR IN MOST RACES. WAS THE 5LB. SPOT FOR THE PREAKNESS WINNER THIS YEAR AND THE PAST FILLY WINNER FOR THE BELMONT – THE KEY ELEMENT???
Here’s my humorous take on the 5lb weight allowance, which I do concede could be important.
I remember watching a filly at Laurel earlier in the year taking on boys, and receiving a similar weight allowance.
As the field went to post, the favored colt took a huge, steaming horse dump on the track.
“Well”, said I “so much for her 5 pound advantage.”
couldn’t have said it any better than you did!! i am happy rach is getting a vacation but not because i think she would loose..i think she could win. i do think it would be asking too much from a horse that has won 5 races this year.she earned the r&r. as far as a triple crown this year..not.. mtb had a great derby and rach had a great preakness.” wouldn’t suprise me to see a new shooter win the belmont nick zito anybody?.you gotta run the race”
Kevin, I admire your patience in trying to reason with morons. I really do.
Naturally, I agree with just about everything you said above (GMTA), and if I have to nitpick, then the only thing I can say is that the same people screaming a horse being “robbed” of a triple crown didn’t get upset at Rags to Riches was because they were probably already mad at Curlin for “robbing” Street Sense of a triple crown victory. :p
LOVE this quote —–> “the truth of the matter is that anyone at anytime can get hurt. If we apply this logic across the board, then clearly following Barbaro’s injury we should have stopped all colts from running as well. “
Lovely post, great thinking behind it.
From a lengthy blog, it’s unfair of me to select only one element — and really an un-horse-related one — about which to grinch. But I’ve spent many years as an amateur military historian myself.
June 6, “a date that will … live in infamy?”
June 6 was a *good* day. A bloody one (D-Day, June 6, 1944) but the right side was victorious.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s quote, of course, was about Pearl Harbor, delivered before a joint session of Congress on Monday, Dec. 8, 1941.
It began, “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the empire of Japan.”
/history geek
Oh, no doubt…I was totally playing on the “generic” WW2 association angle by using a Pearl Harbor quote with D-Day.
(to be honest, I was between the one I used, and a Churchill quote suggesting “this would have been Rachel’s finest hour.” The lack of being able to do an audible Churchill impression within the post caused me to ditch the latter (what’s an English quote without an English impression, afterall?)
Certainly infamous though considering the loss of life, especially on the beaches in the American landing zone.
And since i live quoting WW2 movies, I’d had to have busted out some “Duke” from “The Longest Day” (“St. Mere Eglise is thataway! Knock that sign down! or “Those bodies! Cut those bodies down!!!”)
Last year’s Belmont had infinite historical reference possibilities, since their was a horse named Guadalcanal enterred, and the pre-race buildup was focused on the American, Big Brown, and the Japanese invader, Casino Drive, who ultimately scratched.
..and for the record, I’m a guy who could probably, straight off the top of my head, rattle off the exact positioning of each of the battleships on “battleship row” , as well as their damage extent following the attacks of 12/7/41.
Good grief. I think I’ve met my twin, separated from birth! This blog sounds as if it was written by me!
Did I mention you have excellent opinions?
But speaking of moronic, isn’t it also moronic to obsess on minutiae about the most misguided and inhumane form of the “honor system”, i.e. naval warfare? Where to this day people admire commanders who would “honorably” go down fighting even without any chance of success, and without giving any thought to the several hundred young men whose lives they deliberately sacrificed along with their own, and whose families they robbed of husbands, fathers and sons; all for some perverted concept of chivalry?
A bit more moronic perhaps than to ignore the influence of pace scenarios on last furlong speed?
I’m not writing this to attack you personally (and btw, I really like the post itself), just some food for thought.
Ah, I think you’ve hit on one of the key reasons we were “lucky” Pearl Harbor happened, well, at a harbor, as opposed to out in the middle of the Pacific. How bad might the casualties have been if those ships were caught on the high seas(assuming they had no, or at most minimal carrier protection)? As it was, the casualties on “most” of the ships were relatively light compared to the damage inflicted….with the obvious exceptions of the BB Arizona and the BB Oklahoma.
For example, the Maryland, while heavily damaged, did manage to get her AA guns trained on the incoming planes. She was protected from torpedo runs by virtue of being positioned inside the Oklahoma (who took quite a pounding), and thus only subjected to bomb attacks. While she was originally thought to be sunk by the Japanese, she was actually repaired and rolling again relatively quickly.
Regarding “perverted concepts of chivalry” – it would depend on the situation. As a blanket statement, one could easily ask “and how many other sons, husbands, and fathers would perish if not for some of those chivalrous stands?”
Think of how many times in the early war our carriers could’ve been left for dead and yet were brought back to life, or at least limped home. Hell, at Midway the Japanese thought they had already sunk the Yorktown, and wound up concentrating on her twice after her crew brought her back to life following the initial Japanese counter-strike.
But yes, pace scenarios and last furlong speed….to ignore them is to invite disaster….much like insisting that 6 companis of redcoat riflemen, without proper defensive fortifications, would be able to withstand the entire Zulu army’s encircling movement….and all before Lord Chelmsford has finished with his breakfast.
People who actually ‘know’ anything about horse racing (besides picking their noses as so many on this site seem to take great hubris in this ordinary transitory delight that makes them horse experts) swear that weight or the lack therof will get any horse beat – even champions!!!
Oh it defeinitely makes a difference. Even Curlin’s connections were upset with the weight he had to carry in the Stephen Foster when he came back stateside.
And as for picking noses…..c’mon, if it’s a turf sprint, I can’t even pick that correctly.
“the man made all the right moves with Curlin”
Putting yourself in a position to get beat by a trio of Euros doesn’t look too smart. Curlin off the Foster could have easily won the Ceasar Rodney also at 9f, prepped for the Arl Million which he would have won, gotten TV exposure for that event, then avoided poly by running in the Japan Cup Dirt at 10.5f which was his best game, all of which would’ve enhanced both his race record and earnings. Nobody was jacking the connections of Curlin to run the BCC or Man o War.
Charitible Man runs in the Preakness…who wins?
re: Naval warfare: I have to admit the blanket statement oversimplifies a bit (although I’d generally defend it). I just don’t like it when people talk about battles like it was a Hockey World Cup final (because of the not so subtle difference of what “with one shot, he eliminated the entire Russian defense” means).
@Don Swanson: Be fair, WE (the racing fans) were the ones Jackson did that for, and we did ask. I’m thankful he chose that route, just as I’m thankful that he will rather take a challenge than assemble some statistical stardom nobody but a few dozen breeders gives a crap about.
i got to start by screaming…
“All’s fair in love and war!!!”
don’t know why, but i had to do that.
as for the weight advantage/disadvantage, depending on what side of the fence you are on, the last time i looked at the result of the Preakness, Rachel won by a full length in a mile and 3/16th race filled with classic colts…not a nose or head, and that was after starting with a disavantage of the13 hole.
does 5lbs. equal one length? i don’t know. but i do know there are ways to calculate the actual distances ran by each horse in a race. unfortunately i don’t have the sums for the Preakness, but it’s obvious which horse(s) most likely ran the longer race.
add to that my opinion that Borel asked Rachel too early, with a 1/4 to go (Preakness jitters?), using the whip etc., only to ride her out in the final furlong from the premature burst that began while there was no real pressure or threat around from the real contenders. not to pick apart Borel’s ride, because his horse did win, but the homestrech could have been better handled to get Rachel to the wire first without much of the final turn asking, and instead keeping with her rhythm and saving the nitrous boost, albeit maybe a smaller boost if saved for later.
i don’t know what this all adds up to, maybe a closer finish? maybe a greater margin of victory? Rachel drawing off of a few boys on her heals in the last furlong? and a less taxed Rachel, that would ultimately reappear in Belmont like planned (it seemed)? of coruse then Kevin would need additional pages, maybe a small book, to fight off all the theoretical b.s. that needed to take place to beat Rachel.
Rachel was never passed in the race, not even after the finish line in the gallop out. so how close was Mine That Bird, really?
Kevin, by far your best work yet and my favorite read here. but not so fast, Zenyatta is still a cupcake in my eyes. Rachel’s campaign totally exposed the Californian (not like Cal’s are doing a good job seperating themselves as of recent…ala Colonel John, Poineerof The Nile, etc., dare i say…Lava Man???) who has yet to claim herself as a champion thoroughbred “horse”, not filly/mare. i see a similar blog in your future, swap the name Rachel with Zenyatta. actually…maybe you missed your chance last year with that?
It’s all about the dirt.
And she’s simply above and beyond them…!!!
Man you are good, hit it right on the nail!! I really enjoyed reading this, similar things have been running through my head since Friday.
I’m liking Charitable Man right now for the Belmont, but I hope Mine That Bird wins, he deserves it.
The problem is that Charitable Man is going to be a high quality pace factor in the Belmont unlike Big Drama sans blinkers, and RA has *never* run the final fractions that MTB put up last 2. CM is a contender and might wire the field with a moderate pace but it’s more likely that MTB will outrun him late with a sustained run around those big turns.
“WE (the racing fans) were the ones Jackson did that for, and we did ask. I’m thankful he chose that route, just as I’m thankful that he will rather take a challenge than assemble some statistical stardom nobody but a few dozen breeders gives a crap about”
From a purely handicapping perspective I was rather glad that Curlin ran the BCC because he didn’t figure on poly after a so-so performance on turf and the alternatives Raven and Henry were easy enough to get. In the Arl Million, Spirit One got a surface just fast enough for him to win. Worked out well for me.
Rachel Alexandra was simply the fastest horse in the Preakness and solid value at 9-5. She was going to decline the figure off a faster pace as most horses do (it’s called the class factor) but the advantage was large enough to overcome whatever pace she had to run. That doesn’t figure to be the case in the Belmont. They won’t run because she doesn’t have the same advantage in the Belmont and the Preakness was clearly an all out effort.
I take a handicappers guess that given the race record and pedigree, most of the high end breeders will wait to see before dropping USD 75K on Curlins “legacy”.
[...] The Rachel Alexandra Rant; no Rachel in the Belmont [...]
[...] majority of folks realize this, and that this probably fueled the disappointment many expressed when owner Jess Jackson decided to skip the Belmont and instead rest Rachel for her summer/fall campaign ahead. I found this quite vexing, as I [...]
[...] Now we’re left with a perplexing situation. Just weeks ago, folks were declaring their “concern” that Jackson would have the audacity to run Rachel Alexandra in either the Preakness or the Belmont. “My god….has he lost his mind??? Doesn’t he realize she’s just a filly?” [...]
[...] already proven the naysayers wrong by shattering popular opinion and defeating fields full of stakes winning 3-year-old colts. A win against the older boys in the [...]