I spent my Sunday afternoon at a fantasy football draft in Louisville, about 7 miles from Churchill Downs. It was interesting to hear 10 friends analyze player after player, defense after defense, team after team: who’s going to be better this season, who’s hurt, who should be traded, who should retire…
Racing has its own version of this: we all play Racing Manager with the big horses. Come on – admit it – when Rachel Alexandra romped in the Oaks, you were screaming at the TV that she should’ve run Saturday against the boys. Then when she was entered against the boys in the Preakness, you were staring at the Form hoping this didn’t end badly. And so on…
I’m not sure how I would’ve laid out Rachel’s schedule this year, but the logical upcoming New York choices were/are:
- The Alabama (v. 3yo girls again)? Not really.
- The Travers (v. 3yo boys again and her stablemate Kensei)? Maybe.
- The Personal Ensign (v. older girls)? Probably.
- The Woodward Stakes (v. older boys)? Absolutely not.
And, guess where she’s going? Yup, the Woodward.
I’m having mixed emotions on this: I like the bold choice of seeing just how good she is right here, right now. But the big boys don’t play nice and – though she’s size-wise as big as they are – she’s hasn’t been really bounced around in any of her 13 lifetime starts (I don’t think she’s even felt the whip at all this year – ok, maybe at the top of the Preakness turn, but that was just to get her focused).
Among the field she’s supposed to face are Asiatic Boy (one of the best on the international circuit), Bullsbay (a determined fighter), and Macho Again (proven really talented on any given day). The last time those three got together (along with Pacific Classic-bound Einstein), they were among the top 4 finishers in the Stephen Foster Handicap at Churchill.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Rachel is good enough to run with these boys. Just the same as Zenyatta is good enough to run with the boys in Southern California (hear that, Pacific Classic!).
But Rachel in the Woodward feels like overcompensation. It’s like that guy in the bar who doesn’t think he can get the girl, so he keeps sending drinks over in hopes she maybe caves. Even her trainer, Steve Asmussen, sounds skeptical: “I think she deserves a chance to run in the Woodward.” Not quite the rousing endorsement we’re all used to when a decision is made on Rachel’s next outing.
But overcompensation for what, you ask? Not running in the Breeders’ Cup. For no reason. In my book.
Jess Jackson (Rachel’s owner) notoriously hates synthetic surfaces – such as Breeders’ Cup host site Santa Anita has – but his loathing is pretty much based on a decent (not stellar-as-usual) performance by Curlin in last year’s Classic. I have several issues with the thinking, least of which is the fact that you can’t discount an entire circuit based on one race; but my bigger issue is that Asmussen himself admitted post-race that Curlin was wound too tight (aka was over-prepped).
Come on Jess, you said it yourself in a statement today: “if [Rachel] goes up against older male horses, we’ll be better able to get a measure of her greatness.” Hallelujah!
But why in New York in early September? No offense because I think it’ll be a truly great race, but what’s the Woodward really going to prove?
Why not the Breeders’ Cup Classic? Heck, you could even face older male horses AND get the Rachel v. Zenyatta matchup you yourself say you want and it’s guaranteed to be a full field. It’s the perfect scenario. At least in my fantasy plans.
